The "Communists" who are not Communists [Archive]

robbo203

15th February 2009, 11:19

What a pathetic strawman. Even worse, it's a strawman constructed because the OP was simply unable to address the issue when it was right in front of them (the last thread on Eastern Europe, to be specific).

The establishment of communism, that is a classless society, is far more complicated than you would have yourself believe. Most importantly, the dictatorship of the proletariat is required in the process. Marx constantly supported this, most notably after the Paris Commune. Marx did not criticize the workers for not creating communism, he wrote that they should have taken MORE power and done it MORE decisively. Every Marxist, including Marx, knew that the conditions for communism were not in the immediate future at all, and yet you continue to throw around this claim as if it had any grounding. The dictatorship of the proletariat is required for communism, and any failure to defend this is anti-socialist and anti-Marxist..

The problem with anti-marxists like yourself who wilfully support the blatantly capitalist dictatorship OVER the proletariat in places like the erstwhile USSR, is that you think that just because someone rejects your pathetic attempts to justify the unjustifiable they can be dismissed as "anarchists" and "anti socialists" to boot. I am not an anarchist although I consider most anarchists to be far closer to a revolutionary perspective than your miserable and utterly flawed apology for soviet state capitalism. I do actually support the need for the working class to capture political power to establish socialism/communism. Marx talked about the need for a Dictatorship of the Proletariat by which he meant not a transitional society but a political transistion period. Nor did he mean by that some political party establishing a dictatorial regime (as Hal Draper's comprehensive work in this area has ambly shown) but an ultra democratic republic. The contrast with what existed in the USSR could be more stark. I happen to think that the grounds upon which Marx postulated the need for a DOTP no longer apply and I have serious reservations about the whole concept anyway which I think is inherently incoherent. I suppose political morons like you will now be saying I am an anti-marxist becuase I dare to question canonical text

Further, the material conditions for communism are not as convenient as you would like them to be. You expect us to wish communism into existence, but this is contrary to Marxism. Marxism posits that communism will result from the eradication of class conflict; so long as class conflict exists, communism cannot. Seeing as class conflict DID exist in the USSR, it is absurd and unrealistic and utopian and worse for anyone to think that communism was somehow just within our grasp...

To add to your political illiteracy is the fact that you evidently are a rather poor reader. When did I suggest communism was just within out grasp, huh? I said no such thing. I said the material condistions for communism are in place but that we are nowhere near the mass understanding and support for communism that is the other main precondition for establishing socialism.

Of course class conflict existed in the USSR for the obvious reason that it was a state capitalist system and by finally wrenching this concession from you I have demonstrated to you that you now accept that there was one class in the soviet union that owned the the means of production (via their control of the state) and another class that did not. Otherwise your admission that there was class conflict in the USSR would make no sense at all. Class confluict presupposes classes and classes in the marxian sense - and you pretend to be a marxist so you will presumably realise this - presuppose one section of society owning the means of production and another ,not. Game set and match.

al8

15th February 2009, 11:49

Rather than repeating my same old arguments about why I think such a system wouldn't be workable, I'd like to try another approach: Can you explain to us why you consider this result desirable? Why do you feel that this way of life would be liberating?

http://libcom.org/library/conquestofbread1906peterkropotkin13

It is our opinion that collectivists commit a twofold error in their plans for the reconstruction of society. While speaking of abolishing capitalist rule, they intend nevertheless to retain two institutions which are the very basis of this rule--Representative Government and the Wages System.

No distinction can be drawn between the work of each man. Measuring the work by its results leads us to absurdity; dividing and measuring them by hours spent on the work also leads us to absurdity. One thing remains: put the needs above the works, and first of all recognize the right to live, and later on, to the comforts of life, for all those who take their share in production.

These are just short exerpts, read the article for a full explantion.

Post-Something

15th February 2009, 12:19

Honestly, I think RevLeft needs some kind of "anarchists who think they're Marxists" support group.

Hahahahahaha!

I think Revleft needs some kind of "communists who think trying to replicate 1917 is a good idea, even though capitalism has evolved far beyond what Marx had predicted; but still don't take these evolutions into consideration because they have no sense of Historical Materialism, and instead think the solution is somehow still in Lenin's approach" support group.

In answer to the OP, well tbh, communism isn't going to happen for a long time. Sure, revolutions will come and go, but these will all be tiny steps towards the ideal of communist society. The important thing is to always be for progress. Whether they think that final step, which won't be here for a very long time, is acheivable or not, I think is irrelevant.

Das war einmal

15th February 2009, 13:25

The problem with anti-marxists like yourself...

I was typing a response about this, but then I realized its really not worth the effort.

ZeroNowhere

15th February 2009, 14:09

http://libcom.org/library/conquestofbread1906peterkropotkin13

These are just short exerpts, read the article for a full explantion.
Potkrakin misusing the term 'wages' isn't especially relevant to the question. I mean, that kind of stuff's been done to death on the WSM forums.

One thing remains: put the needs above the works, and first of all recognize the right to live, and later on, to the comforts of life, for all those who take their share in production.
I don't think that many of us LVers propose that everything should be based upon labour credits. Generally we propose that stuff like food, automobiles, energy, cooking appliances, etc, should be free until a certain amount, when they become luxuries themselves. For luxuries (stuff like special cameras and other stuff necessary to seriously pursue hobbies, 3 cars, 10 pounds of food per day, etc), one must take part in production, which would appear to be what Trotkinkap is suggesting here. If one doesn't contribute even though they can, then I don't really have any problem with them having only their basic needs met. Of course, there wouldn't need to be any bureaucratic organization to monitor this kind of thing; we would already be keeping statistics under socialism for production in general. As for the rest, ML's question seemed to be intended to avoid a repeat of the generic LV/FA debate, so I'm not entirely sure that it would be appropriate to start up an LV/FA debate treading old paths over and over again in this thread.

manic expression

15th February 2009, 16:07

The problem with anti-marxists like yourself who wilfully support the blatantly capitalist dictatorship OVER the proletariat in places like the erstwhile USSR,

Another strawman with no reason or logic. Try again.

I do actually support the need for the working class to capture political power to establish socialism/communism. Marx talked about the need for a Dictatorship of the Proletariat by which he meant not a transitional society but a political transistion period.And that is precisely what you are ignoring.

Nor did he mean by that some political party establishing a dictatorial regime (as Hal Draper's comprehensive work in this area has ambly shown) but an ultra democratic republic."Ultra democratic"? How inventive of you.

Back to the point, Marx DID want the party to set up a dictatorship. The fact that you can't figure this out yourself just shows us how little you understand Marx. Go and read some of Marx's writings and then get back to me.

The contrast with what existed in the USSR could be more stark. I happen to think that the grounds upon which Marx postulated the need for a DOTP no longer apply and I have serious reservations about the whole concept anyway which I think is inherently incoherent. I suppose political morons like you will now be saying I am an anti-marxist becuase I dare to question canonical text No, I think you're not a Marxist because you just questioned one of the most crucial aspects of Marxism.

More importantly, you just questioned the most crucial difference between anarchists and Marxists: the dictatorship of the proletariat. That concept, the one you have "serious reservations about", is one of the most criticized by anarchists; it is only fitting that you join them in this regard, because you're not a Marxist.

To add to your political illiteracy is the fact that you evidently are a rather poor reader. When did I suggest communism was just within out grasp, huh? I said no such thing.

Followed immediately by...

I said the material condistions for communism are in place:lol:

Material conditions are EVERYTHING for a Marxist. If you think material conditions are in place for communism, you're just lost. Sorry.

Here's a hint: think about class conflict a little more, that's what Marxists do.

but that we are nowhere near the mass understanding and support for communism that is the other main precondition for establishing socialism.That's nice.

Of course class conflict existed in the USSR for the obvious reason that it was a state capitalist systemAnother strawman with no support whatsoever. Try again.

and by finally wrenching this concession from you I have demonstrated to you that you now accept that there was one class in the soviet union that owned the the means of production (via their control of the state) and another class that did not.:lol::lol::lol:

Sorry, pal, but what I actually implied was that the capitalist class was trying to retake power, which it did in 1993. It's good to see that you're so desperate to twist my words, though.

Otherwise your admission that there was class conflict in the USSR would make no sense at all.No, it wouldn't make sense to you, since you're not a Marxist.

Class confluict presupposes classes and classes in the marxian sense - and you pretend to be a marxist so you will presumably realise this - presuppose one section of society owning the means of production and another ,not. Game set and match.Except Marxists understand that the bourgeoisie doesn't disappear when they're overthrown. They still reestablish their control.

"Game set and match"? My word, you really are insecure, aren't you?

manic expression

15th February 2009, 16:10

I think Revleft needs some kind of "communists who think trying to replicate 1917 is a good idea, even though capitalism has evolved far beyond what Marx had predicted; but still don't take these evolutions into consideration because they have no sense of Historical Materialism, and instead think the solution is somehow still in Lenin's approach" support group.

Please explain how capitalism has evolved past the Leninists' understanding of it.

While you're doing this, remember that one of the fundamental contributions of Lenin was recognizing that capitalism HAD developed past Marx's lifetime and thus was different in some respects to Marx's analyses.

Post-Something

15th February 2009, 16:15

Back to the point, Marx DID want the party to set up a dictatorship.

Wait, where did he say this?

The fact that you can't figure this out yourself just shows us how little you understand Marx. Go and read some of Marx's writings and then get back to me.

No, that's blatantly not what Marx said. Party does not equal proletariat.

Post-Something

15th February 2009, 16:25

Please explain how capitalism has evolved past the Leninists' understanding of it.

While you're doing this, remember that one of the fundamental contributions of Lenin was recognizing that capitalism HAD developed past Marx's lifetime and thus was different in some respects to Marx's analyses.

Capitalism has now advanced so much that it is able to divide the working class. The working class won't organise themselves together anymore as Marx once envisioned because they are structurally indoctrined not to. It's as simple as that. Otherwise there would have been a revolution in capitalist country. Lenins idea wasn't to take Russia to socialism, he was just waiting for a capitalist country to have a revolution, and that didn't happen.

Please explain how Lenin's ideas of party organisation are still relevant to todays world.

And while you're doing this, remember that it didn't work.

manic expression

15th February 2009, 16:30

Wait, where did he say this?

I'm glad you asked.

From the Manifesto of the Communist Party:

The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.

They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.

So, in this sense, the party does not have any interests apart from the proletariat. The proletariat's interests, remember, are in setting up a dictatorship of their own interests. Thus, the party is to further this and contribute to the establishment of said dictatorship.

No, that's blatantly not what Marx said. Party does not equal proletariat.

No, party does not equal the entire proletariat, but that's not the contention here. Party equals proletarian interests. Party equals proletarian progress. Party equals proletarian struggle. So, to Marx, party does equal proletariat in those key ways. Just read his words.

manic expression

15th February 2009, 16:42

Capitalism has now advanced so much that it is able to divide the working class.

You act as though this is something new. It ain't. Lenin and his contemporaries talked about this in length, and moreover they encountered such problems numerous times.

The working class won't organise themselves together anymore as Marx once envisioned because they are structurally indoctrined not to. It's as simple as that. Otherwise there would have been a revolution in capitalist country. Lenins idea wasn't to take Russia to socialism, he was just waiting for a capitalist country to have a revolution, and that didn't happen.

Marx didn't think the workers would just "organized themselves together", he envisioned it taking struggle and difficulty and defeat. Lenin, for his part, developed the concept of the vanguard party as the central agent of working-class organization, which basically nullifies the concerns you have.

Lenin wanted to spark revolutions in Germany and beyond, yes. However, once the Bolsheviks realized this had been lost, they set about building socialism in the USSR, which is precisely what they should have done.

Please explain how Lenin's ideas of party organisation are still relevant to todays world.

As you have been unable to show how Leninism is outdated, I have no argument to make in this regard; the lack of evidence on your side is all the evidence I need.

Here are the basics: imperialism has not fundamentally changed, we are still playing the same game. Most importantly, however, the vanguard party WORKS, then as now.

And while you're doing this, remember that it didn't work.

We've already been over the fall of the USSR, and Leninism is certainly not at fault for this. However, you're more than welcome to review what the rest of us have already figured out.

robbo203

15th February 2009, 16:46

Rather than repeating my same old arguments about why I think such a system wouldn't be workable, I'd like to try another approach: Can you explain to us why you consider this result desirable? Why do you feel that this way of life would be liberating?

Let me begin by just saying that while I have my differences with SLP and other advocates of the LV scheme (a la Marx's lower phase of communism) I regard them completely as fellow comrades and communists on more or less the same wavelength. I differentiate utterly between these .on the one hand , and Leninism, on the other, and all it sundry offshoots from the rather more sophisticated Trots to the neanderthal Stalinists who are litte more than craven apologists for a particularly chauvinistic not to say, fascistic, version of state capitalism. What all the latter are committed to is plainly a dead-end destination, a historical cul de sac, but many of these people have neither the wit not the imagination to see this. They drone on ridiculously like some religious cult chanting their meaningless cliches that have no practical relevance to the working class today. Anyone with a bit of nonce would have twigged by now that the state capitalist road aint gonna take us anywhere; it has failed dismally from the viewpoint of the working class and, more still, has set back the task of building a genuine communist movement by decades.

But enough of that. My interest is with people who genuinely want a communist society (unlike the Stalinist shower that populates this forum) even if we may differ over the details of such a society or how to get it. If I read you correctly you seem to be saying that the higher phase of communism is unworkable and that we must therefore settle for Marx's lower phase. I actually take the opposite view. I think the lower phase is unnecessary and the LV scheme too problematic to be workable. (Marx himself was very half hearted about the scheme it should be pointed out).

I am not sure precisely why you think the idea of a society based on the principle from each according to ability to each according to need is unworkable. You will have to refresh my memory here. What specifically are your objections so that I can consider them?

Why do I consider such a society desirable and liberating. The reasons are many and diverse. We have the technological potential already to satisfy all our reasonable needs but it requires a social revolution to liberate this potential and to sweep away the massive and ever growing burden of stuctural waste associated with maintaining a capitalist money economy.

A communist economy in its higher or "free access" mode will be what I call a generalised gift economy in which we recognise our mutual dependence upon and obligation to one another - not some nanny state. That is what I detest about some on the Left - their glorification of the state, their wilful refusal to see as Marx saw so clearly that the state - any state - is only an instrument of class rule, signifiying the perpetuation of a class-divided society. I see a communist society as one in which individuals will become fully human beings, responsible adults caring for each other and themselves, being able to express themselves creatively in ways that are difficult to imagine now and, above all, benefitting from a comprehensive sense of lasting security that genuine communism will afford - not only in the material sense but psychologically in the sense of being freed at last the perpetual worry and niggling anxieties that capitalism constantly instils in people. To me that alone is a sufficiently desirable attribute to make me want to work for such an alternative. How about you?

robbo203

15th February 2009, 17:19

Material conditions are EVERYTHING for a Marxist. If you think material conditions are in place for communism, you're just lost. Sorry.
:lol::lol::lol:

Sorry, pal, but what I actually implied was that the capitalist class was trying to retake power, which it did in 1993. It's good to see that you're so desperate to twist my words, though.

No, it wouldn't make sense to you, since you're not a Marxist.

Except Marxists understand that the bourgeoisie doesn't disappear when they're overthrown. They still reestablish their control?

I see this laugh-a-minute joker is still coming out with some crackers but as usual is utterly devoid of any sensible counter argument let alone providing anything that could passably be called evidence for his increasingly outlandish claims.

I wont bother with the bulk of his drivel - whats the point? But one or two comments might still just possibly merit a response.

First regarding the material conditions for communism by which I mean the trechnological capacity to ptroduce anough to satisfy people's reasonable needs, even Engels back in the late 19th century was speculating , following the second industrial revolution, that this capacity had just about been achieved by then. The timing might have been slightly out but clearly by the early 20th century that capacity had been realised. This does not mean that today all our reasonable needs are being met. Of course not. The point is that there is no reason why our reasonable needs cannot be met other than capitalism itself which is responsive only to effective market demand and not human needs and moreover increasingly squanders human and material resources on socially wasteful activities that do not satisfy human needs in any meaningful sense.

Secondly regarding the ridiculous claim about the capitalist class retaking power in Russia in 1993 what you mean of course is that the old state capitalist class of the Soviet Union used their networks and influence to secure individual control of capital rather than collective class control of capital via the nomenklatura system. The argument that the Soviet Union was anything other than a state capitalist dictatorship will not stand up to any serious scrutiny. If the capitalist class did not disappear as is claimed then it follows that the capitalist class in order to be a capitalist class at all must have been doing what a capitalist class always necessarily does - exploiting its workforces and living off the resulting surplus value . This must have been sanctioned by the state in the Soviet Union otherwise how could have been allowed to continue? So according to even your laughable theory, the capitalist could not have recaptured power in 1993 but with the backing of the state would have exploiting Russian workers before 1993 as well!

Post-Something

15th February 2009, 17:34

Ok, lets have a look at this.

I'm glad you asked.

From the Manifesto of the Communist Party:

The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.

Really? So according to this, the SWP and the CPGB arearen't opposed to each other? Both claim to be working class parties, so who decides? They both interpret Marx, but in different ways.

They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

In China, it's well known that you can't get anywhere unless you are a member of the party. The party can act on it's own interests as you have pointed out later on in your post.

I have one question for you, why then, did we see in Russia, the deterioration of democracy?

They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.

If you can't answer this yourself, there's no hope. I've heard of party's who refuse to admit WW2 is over because Trotsky predicted that capitalism would be abolished by then, and since it isn't, obviously the war isn't either. Marxists are constantly trying to fit the world into narrow linear perspective, which is very UN-marxist, and that's coming from a Marxist.

So, in this sense, the party does not have any interests apart from the proletariat. The proletariat's interests, remember, are in setting up a dictatorship of their own interests. Thus, the party is to further this and contribute to the establishment of said dictatorship.

It's not in the proletariats interests not to have a democratic form of government.

No, party does not equal the entire proletariat, but that's not the contention here. Party equals proletarian interests. Party equals proletarian progress. Party equals proletarian struggle. So, to Marx, party does equal proletariat in those key ways. Just read his words.

How can a centralised state millions of miles away from you know your interests better than youself?

Post-Something

15th February 2009, 17:49

You act as though this is something new. It ain't. Lenin and his contemporaries talked about this in length, and moreover they encountered such problems numerous times.

It's new because Hegemony now acts on a global scale. The only place a revolution can realistically happen is an underdeveloped country, and that is doomed to failure because it won't necessarilly spread.

Marx didn't think the workers would just "organized themselves together", he envisioned it taking struggle and difficulty and defeat. Lenin, for his part, developed the concept of the vanguard party as the central agent of working-class organization, which basically nullifies the concerns you have.

Not in a capitalist society though.

Lenin wanted to spark revolutions in Germany and beyond, yes. However, once the Bolsheviks realized this had been lost, they set about building socialism in the USSR, which is precisely what they should have done.

Because Socialism can be achieved in one country :confused:

Anyway, this issue has been addressed a million times in other threads, and there is no point in debating it here.

As you have been unable to show how Leninism is outdated, I have no argument to make in this regard; the lack of evidence on your side is all the evidence I need.

Maybe "outdated" isn't the correct term, but I still fundamentally disagree with Lenin on a lot of subjects.

Since you're a stalinist, why do you think that socialism didn't work in the USSR and China?

Here are the basics: imperialism has not fundamentally changed, we are still playing the same game. Most importantly, however, the vanguard party WORKS, then as now.

Ok, if the vanguard party works, then why did the party concentrate power, rather than disperse it after the capitalist class had been defeated?

We've already been over the fall of the USSR, and Leninism is certainly not at fault for this. However, you're more than welcome to review what the rest of us have already figured out.

Thanks.

NecroCommie

15th February 2009, 18:17

The very basic assumption of the writer of the first post was a false one. Communism does not aim at abolition of state and monetal trade ect... Communism aims to the abolition of all exploitive and oppressive relations in society, to which abolition of state and free trade are just means, not ends. Therefore I think everyone who has the same goal, and think that the lack of equality is due to capitalism, can rightly call themselves communists, whether I believe in their means or not. To put it simply: Communism is defined by "what" and "why", but you persecute those who have different views on "how".

Since the very basic assumption was incorrect, the rest of the post was really just wasting breath. However I am ready to illuminate my views further just for the sake of arguing. :D

The author mentioned that the pro-eastern bloc communists are not communists at all, and that only your western interpitation is the true form of communism. To be frank, dont you think such oppinions are a bit elitist and idealist? It is funny to hear that from a citizen of a land never dramatically effected by the Soviet-union. And how come the biggest communist masses are in the ex-eastern bloc? Could it be that Soviet union "GASP" actually increased the living standards and rights of the working class? Surely not, after all my teacher said Stalin killed a lot of people. Even here in a country only second-handedly effected by the SU, Living standards skyrocketted after the introduction of soviet influence, and plummeted after its collapse. Not a coincidence I tell you.

And as for people not accepting your views of immediate communism after revolution? An idealist view I say! Sure communists too reject such ideas, but because they ARE utopian. Now you think that with utopian I mean it cant be done. Sure it can be done, but not now, and not immediately even after the revolution. Rome was not built in a day, and to say so is utopian. I really fight for the same thing that you do, but I dont want to rush things so that we dont end up having another failed "experiment".

Now some people have also said that state-supporting communists are not communists at all. I dare to disagree, for it is true that abolition of state should be the long-term goal, but before that can be achieved we need to win the capitalist class first. If we start abolishing state immediately, some cappie state will come immediately waving their weapons and dicks at us, and finally taking all that had been achieved. True communism cant be achieved until it is implemented on the entire world, and that aint done overnight. Until that, a socialist state will have to do.

All this bashing is giving me a headache, why are comrades fighting comrades? We should concentrate on toppling capitalism, for THIS is what cappies want. Communists fihgting with themselves over some theoretical details on the "trueness" of that and that school of communism. Such warmongers amongst us are enemies of the working class.

manic expression

15th February 2009, 21:34

I see this laugh-a-minute joker is still coming out with some crackers but as usual is utterly devoid of any sensible counter argument let alone providing anything that could passably be called evidence for his increasingly outlandish claims.

That's probably because your points merit no counterargument.

First regarding the material conditions for communism by which I mean the trechnological capacity to ptroduce anough to satisfy people's reasonable needs, even Engels back in the late 19th century was speculating , following the second industrial revolution, that this capacity had just about been achieved by then. The timing might have been slightly out but clearly by the early 20th century that capacity had been realised. This does not mean that today all our reasonable needs are being met. Of course not. The point is that there is no reason why our reasonable needs cannot be met other than capitalism itself which is responsive only to effective market demand and not human needs and moreover increasingly squanders human and material resources on socially wasteful activities that do not satisfy human needs in any meaningful sense.

Material conditions aren't just about technology, they're about class conflict. So long as there is class conflict, there cannot be communism; that is the most crucial required material condition. To achieve this, the dictatorship of the proletariat must be established and defended, for during socialism the capitalist class still exists and still struggles against progress.

Secondly regarding the ridiculous claim about the capitalist class retaking power in Russia in 1993 what you mean of course is that the old state capitalist class of the Soviet Union used their networks and influence to secure individual control of capital rather than collective class control of capital via the nomenklatura system.

We've already been over this in the "20 years of capitalism" thread, and you were categorically proven wrong then. In fact, you failed to address the issues at all, and when faced with the fact that commodity production didn't exist in the USSR, you suddenly disappeared.

The argument that the Soviet Union was anything other than a state capitalist dictatorship will not stand up to any serious scrutiny. If the capitalist class did not disappear as is claimed then it follows that the capitalist class in order to be a capitalist class at all must have been doing what a capitalist class always necessarily does - exploiting its workforces and living off the resulting surplus value . This must have been sanctioned by the state in the Soviet Union otherwise how could have been allowed to continue? So according to even your laughable theory, the capitalist could not have recaptured power in 1993 but with the backing of the state would have exploiting Russian workers before 1993 as well!

Practically no one who defends the Soviet Union says the capitalist class disappeared. It was overthrown, but it still existed. Therefore, the entire premise of this point is flawed and thus incorrect.

Much like this entire thread, in fact.

manic expression

15th February 2009, 22:04

[/i]Really? So according to this, the SWP and the CPGB arearen't opposed to each other? Both claim to be working class parties, so who decides? They both interpret Marx, but in different ways.

Please don't ask me to comment on parties I'm not familiar with. However, Marx certainly talked about "working-class parties" which were completely misled, he devoted an entire section of the Manifesto to a study of this. The point was that communists have no interests separate from the workers. That doesn't mean that every Tom, Dick and Harry who calls themselves a communist falls under this category. We must analyze people by their actions, not the labels they give their actions.
In China, it's well known that you can't get anywhere unless you are a member of the party. The party can act on it's own interests as you have pointed out later on in your post.

Every party everywhere follows the currents of class conflict, they don't have inherent interests unto themselves. Since class conflict is the basis of society, it is simply unscientific to say that any party can invent interests unique to itself.

This applies to both sides of the argument. If you call the CPC "capitalist" (which just isn't true, but that's beside the point), you are saying the party is following the interests of the capitalist class; if you call the CPC socialist, you are saying it is following the interests of the working class. By the way, that also holds true if you employ Trotsky's analysis.

I have one question for you, why then, did we see in Russia, the deterioration of democracy?

The isolation of the Russian Revolution, the economic backwardness of the former Russian Empire, the disappearence of Russia's urban populations and the threat of imperialism and capitalist elements (anti-socialist kulaks, the Whites, imperialist invasions, etc.).

That's a bit more reasonable then saying the party was a bunch of greedy mean bureaucrats.

If you can't answer this yourself, there's no hope. I've heard of party's who refuse to admit WW2 is over because Trotsky predicted that capitalism would be abolished by then, and since it isn't, obviously the war isn't either. Marxists are constantly trying to fit the world into narrow linear perspective, which is very UN-marxist, and that's coming from a Marxist.

Just because an idiot calls himself a communist doesn't make it so.

Don't interpret Marx so literally as to make it meaningless. Again, Marx openly opposed a lot of "Marxists" in his own day who didn't understand his ideas (the famous line: "then I am not a Marxist").

It's not in the proletariats interests not to have a democratic form of government.

I agree, but this isn't always possible. Democratic mechanisms are incredibly important, and that is why Cuba has maintained such a vital socialist society for so long under so much pressure. However, to blindly say this is always possible under all conditions is just narrow-minded. Russia is one example of this.

How can a centralised state millions of miles away from you know your interests better than youself?

One could ask the same of an Indonesian worker with regards to you, or me, or anyone else on this forum.

Nevertheless, a state's nature is defined by its class character. If it is a state of the proletariat, then it will know the interests of the workers quite intimately. It would defend collectivized property, the abolition of commodity production, the lack of exploitation, the power of the workers and other things which are in the interests of all workers. That's how it would "know" "their" "interests". On a related note, that's also why the USSR was in the workers' interests, and that's why the fall of the USSR was NOT in the workers' interests.

Further, Cuba has shown that "centralized" states (as if any modern state could be anything but centralized) can be run under fully democratic principles. That's the point, the workers run the thing.

It's new because Hegemony now acts on a global scale. The only place a revolution can realistically happen is an underdeveloped country, and that is doomed to failure because it won't necessarilly spread.

Imperialism always had hegemony on a global scale. For crying out loud, the British colonialists had international hegemony by the mid 19th Century. This is, once again, nothing new.

Revolution is possible in developed countries, and the struggles in Europe and the American crisis just underline this potential further. Germany, a developed capitalist nation, saw many strong revolutionary movements in 1919 and 1920. It's unhelpful to be defeatist about the prospect of revolution.

Because Socialism can be achieved in one country :confused:

Anyway, this issue has been addressed a million times in other threads, and there is no point in debating it here.

Yes, it can. See Cuba.

Maybe "outdated" isn't the correct term, but I still fundamentally disagree with Lenin on a lot of subjects.

Since you're a stalinist, why do you think that socialism didn't work in the USSR and China?

Point taken. If you disagree with Lenin, that's one thing, but you came off like you were criticizing the whole of Marxism, which is why I replied in the first place.

I don't really get your question. You can call me a Stalinist if you insist, but I wouldn't call myself one at all. Plus, I think socialism did work in the USSR and PRC.

Ok, if the vanguard party works, then why did the party concentrate power, rather than disperse it after the capitalist class had been defeated?

It was essentially forced into such strong measures by the conditions of the time. Again, the isolation of the revolution, the economic backwardness of the new state, the disappearence of urban populations and capitalist aggression all took their toll.

More importantly, though, the point of revolution is to take power, not disperse it. Revolution IS working-class power, and so the workers must retain this power through a state which defends their interests by force.

Thanks.

In all seriousness, if you want to see what I have to say on that matter, check out the "20 Years of Capitalism" thread (posted by the Newsbot) in politics. The fall of the USSR is really complicated, but I don't think anyone can honestly blame Leninism for it.

redarmyfaction38

15th February 2009, 23:44

Can you WSMers et al please stop defining socialism as "What we want, and nothing else"? :)

No, the difference is that anarchists don't like using the term. Not that that's a significant enough difference to justify the 'Marxism vs Anarchism' leaflets every Leninist Party seems to have somewhere or the other.
And yeah, the WSM and such are Marxist. If you wish to prove to them that they are not, you may do so here (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/).

Since you see a conflict between anarchism and Marxism here, and anarchism is a form of socialism, calling anarchism anti-socialist is somewhat silly.
anarchism is not a form of socialism, anarchism denies the need for socialism, socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat, the working class as the ruling class, ruling in its interest, destroying capitalism and ensuring the triumph of workers interests over those of the bourgouisie.
it is a dictatorship, a dictatorship of the needs of the majority over the selfish interests of the minority.
anarchists believe this "dictatorship of the proletariat" is not necessary, they believe we can move straight to a "communist" society, this is obviously bullshit, because if you don't destroy the power of the bourgouisie, if you don't dictate the new economic and social conditions then you will be doomed to failure.
anarchism, which personally, i have some sympathy with, cannot deliver the goods without the dictatorship of the proletariat, it's time will come, but you cannot have a "communist society" before a "socialist" one.
anarchy is the society after communism not before.

robbo203

16th February 2009, 00:01

Material conditions aren't just about technology, they're about class conflict. So long as there is class conflict, there cannot be communism; that is the most crucial required material condition. To achieve this, the dictatorship of the proletariat must be established and defended, for during socialism the capitalist class still exists and still struggles against progress ..

Yawn. You never ever answer this point do you? If the capitalist class still exists, the class that exploits the workers by definition, then how can the proletariats be "dictating" to them? How? how? how? Even a six year old kid can see through this stupid argument. If there was a dictatorship of the proletariat in place then it stands to reason that it would not possibly permit the capitalist class to exploit the proletariat and therefore its existence as a class would cease to be. That incidentally is why I think the whole concept of the DOTP is incoherent and should be jettisoned completely

When talking about the material preconditions of communism it is understood by just about every one else (except you apparently) that this refers to the technological capacity to support a communist society. There is a whole passage on precisely this point in The German Ideology

We've already been over this in the "20 years of capitalism" thread, and you were categorically proven wrong then. In fact, you failed to address the issues at all, and when faced with the fact that commodity production didn't exist in the USSR, you suddenly disappeared...

Ah bless your little cotton socks I have been "proven wrong" becuase somebody with a silly name like Manic expression says I am wrong . So that makes me wrong. Yeah yeah . Give me a break. Of course commodity production existed in the USSR. What the friggin hell do you think workers did with the wages they earned (which incidentally is another sure sign of the existence of capitalism as Marx pointed out) . Why, they bought things with it! Did you not realise this? Or maybe you thought that a vast army of little fairies toiled tirelessly to deliver these things free of charge to the doorsteps of the Russian proletariat at the dead of night. Well no - sorry to disappoint you but it didnt happen like that. What happened is the workers exchanged their pitiful wages for things like bread , soap and vodka (and they needed lots of the latter to drown their misery in this stalinist hell hole) Now, my little twinkle toes, in case you didnt know, this is precisely what makes these things commodities. Back in the 19th century there was this old bearded German geezer called Karl Marx who wrote quite a lot about commodity production in a rather long book called Das Kapital. In it , he pointed out that capitalism is based upon generalised commodity production which is precisely what you had in the USSR. Wriggle as much as you like , my friend, but you cant get out of that one.

Practically no one who defends the Soviet Union says the capitalist class disappeared. It was overthrown, but it still existed. Therefore, the entire premise of this point is flawed and thus incorrect.
Much like this entire thread, in fact.

Like I said if it was "overthrown" how come it was allowed to continue exploiting the workers? If, on the other hand, it was no longer able to exploit the workers then by definition it must have ceased to exist as a capitalist class. Stop flapping around like some demented headless chicken and answer the point for once. Strewth. Talk about trying to get blood out of stone

manic expression

16th February 2009, 00:16

Yawn. You never ever answer this point do you? If the capitalist class still exists, the class that exploits the workers by definition, then how can the proletariats be "dictating" to them? How? how? how? Even a six year old kid can see through this stupid argument. If there was a dictatorship of the proletariat in place then it stands to reason that it would not possibly permit the capitalist class to exploit the proletariat and therefore its existence as a class would cease to be. That incidentally is why I think the whole concept of the DOTP is incoherent and should be jettisoned completely

This isn't that hard to understand.

When the bourgeoisie was developing, but hadn't yet taken power, did it exist? Yes. When the monarchy had been overthrown in England and France, did it still exist? Yes, of course, both royal lines were restored to power eventually. Therefore, former and future ruling classes CAN exist without being in power at that moment. The bourgeoisie is no different.

And the fact that you think this is a reason for "jettisoning" the DotP, one of the most crucial aspects of Marxism, just shows us how anti-Marxist you are.

When talking about the material preconditions of communism it is understood by just about every one else (except you apparently) that this refers to the technological capacity to support a communist society. There is a whole passage on precisely this point in The German Ideology

Oh, I see, class conflict isn't material, it's conceptual. :rolleyes:

Ah bless your little cotton socks I have been "proven wrong" becuase somebody with a silly name like Manic expression says I am wrong . So that makes me wrong. Yeah yeah . Give me a break. Of course commodity production existed in the USSR. What the friggin hell do you think workers did with the wages they earned (which incidentally is another sure sign of the existence of capitalism as Marx pointed out) . Why, they bought things with it! Did you not realise this? Or maybe you thought that a vast army of little fairies toiled tirelessly to deliver these things free of charge to the doorsteps of the Russian proletariat at the dead of night. Well no - sorry to disappoint you but it didnt happen like that. What happened is the workers exchanged their pitiful wages for things like bread , soap and vodka (and they needed lots of the latter to drown their misery in this stalinist hell hole) Now, my little twinkle toes, in case you didnt know, this is precisely what makes these things commodities. Back in the 19th century there was this old bearded German geezer called Karl Marx who wrote quite a lot about commodity production in a rather long book called Das Kapital. In it , he pointed out that capitalism is based upon generalised commodity production which is precisely what you had in the USSR. Wriggle as much as you like , my friend, but you cant get out of that one.

All that pent-up indignation and no analysis.

State ownership of all important industrial, transportation and financial enterprises (i.e. of the means of production and circulation), combined with legal (constitutional) suppression of the right to their private appropriation, centralized economic planning and state monopoly of foreign trade, imply the absence of generalized commodity production and the rule of the law of value in the USSR. This means that the economy is no longer capitalist. There is neither a market for large means of production nor for manpower, and labor-power has ceased to be a commodity.

Mandel continues:

So long as only partial commodity production survives, money does not and cannot have the same functions as under capitalism or even under petty commodity production; it cannot become large-scale capital, and only in marginal cases (“black market production”) does it become a means of direct exploitation of labor-power.

Sorry, your temper tantrum doesn't counter facts.

Like I said if it was "overthrown" how come it was allowed to continue exploiting the workers?

Because former ruling classes which have been overthrown do not disappear simply by being out of power.

Did the nobility of France disappear even though it wasn't in power after the French Revolution? No, it came back into power. Does that mean the nobility were secretly in power during the Terror and the Directory? No, of course not. Only an idiot would say so.

You just did.

mikelepore

16th February 2009, 01:29

I am not sure precisely why you think the idea of a society based on the principle from each according to ability to each according to need is unworkable. You will have to refresh my memory here. What specifically are your objections so that I can consider them?

I think the Free Access system would materially reward people for making socially undesirable decisions, and would therefore increase the repetition of those undesirable behaviors. The system would communicate to the individual: you can have as much material stuff as you want, including every existing kind of hobby equipment, and the use of all recreational facilities and the transportation to get to them -- and you also get to decide how long your vacation is to be. The individual is therefore rewarded to concoct the worst excuse: Geez, I genuinely need a whole lot of that stuff, so that I can be a complete person and live my life to the fullest extent -- and, in order to have enough time to enjoy it, I really need to work only about four weeks per year, and take forty-eight weeks of vacation. The result would be that consumption levels approach infinity, while production levels asymptotically approach zero, which presents a contradiction, and so the system must therefore collapse almost immediately. Rational socialist planning requires assuredness that we will have convergence to a mathematical solution where the rate at which people produce goods and the rate at which people consume goods will match closely. The Free Access system has no mechanism to see to it that they will match up.

Die Neue Zeit

16th February 2009, 01:56

Comrade Mike, I call such folks "consumption fetish" psychopaths.

mikelepore

16th February 2009, 03:35

A communist economy in its higher or "free access" mode will be what I call a generalised gift economy in which we recognise our mutual dependence upon and obligation to one another - not some nanny state. That is what I detest about some on the Left - their glorification of the state, their wilful refusal to see as Marx saw so clearly that the state - any state - is only an instrument of class rule, signifiying the perpetuation of a class-divided society. I see a communist society as one in which individuals will become fully human beings, responsible adults caring for each other and themselves, being able to express themselves creatively in ways that are difficult to imagine now and, above all, benefitting from a comprehensive sense of lasting security that genuine communism will afford - not only in the material sense but psychologically in the sense of being freed at last the perpetual worry and niggling anxieties that capitalism constantly instils in people. To me that alone is a sufficiently desirable attribute to make me want to work for such an alternative. How about you?

Initially I didn't want to impose myself on others too much in this thread, I just wanted to listen for a change, but if you ask me "how about you?" then that gets me started injecting my opinion.

As for me, I don't specify socialist goals that might be called cultural or behavioral or existential, such as people caring for each other, becoming fully human, etc. I only identify structural goals, such as industry being operated on a nonprofit basis, the workers democratically electing the management committees, etc. I speculate that many cultural benefits will arrive afterwards, but I don't think they're knowable or testable today. I think the working class needs to move into socialism without making any assumptions that people will later be different in character.

I mean that not only regarding the method of distribution of goods, but I have also dropped all references to "the state", for the same reason. It's a behavioral argument. Claims in those areas can't be proven, and I won't assert anything unless I'm satisfied that I can prove it.

mikelepore

16th February 2009, 03:47

Comrade Mike, I call such folks "consumption fetish" psychopaths.

I know that Robbo203 isn't consumption fetishistic like that, but I suspect that the human animal is subject to classical conditioning, where a behavior that gets rewarded tends to increase, and I see the issue here as being which behaviors are desirable and which undesirable, and what kind of social environment would tend to encourage one and discourage the other.

In December of 2005, writer "Mercedes" in the WSM forum said to me, "Rewarding people hourly is the absolutely only way you can compel someone to work? Are you Pavlov's dog?" I replied, "Woof!"

Die Neue Zeit

16th February 2009, 03:49

"Woof!" indeed! :lol:

robbo203

16th February 2009, 09:16

This isn't that hard to understand.

When the bourgeoisie was developing, but hadn't yet taken power, did it exist? Yes. When the monarchy had been overthrown in England and France, did it still exist? Yes, of course, both royal lines were restored to power eventually. Therefore, former and future ruling classes CAN exist without being in power at that moment. The bourgeoisie is no different.

And the fact that you think this is a reason for "jettisoning" the DotP, one of the most crucial aspects of Marxism, just shows us how anti-Marxist you are..

This has got to be one of the battiest arguments I have ever heard! Lets look at it. I asked you to explain how a proletariat can be in a position to dictate to the capitalists and yet allow the capitalists to continue exploiting the proles (by definition this has happen or else there would be no capitalists by virtue of there being no exploitation - geddit?). . And what do you come up with? Ah yes, its quite possible for a former and future ruling class to coexist together cos look what happened in France and England when the monarchy was overthrown. Anyone with any nonce can dispose of this codswallop with ease. The relationship between workers and capitalists is organically linked via a process of exploitation in the way that the relationship between the monarchy and the capitalist is not. Sure , Queen Betty today can happily coexist with the capitalist class - why she is pretty much a big time capitalist herself. But it is simply inconceivable that a working class can be in a position to dictate terms AND allow itself to be exploited. Er.. the one kinda cancels out the other, dont you think? Marx said somewhere that the proletariat would be the last class to achieve its emancipation and by doing so would emancipate humanity form class oppression. The working class capturing political power represents and can only logically represent its complete abolition as a subject class along with the class that previously exploited it

Do I reject the DotP then. Yes I do. Does that make me an anti-marxist? No I dont think so. I would say that by and large my advocacy of a communist society as opposed to the state capitalist dictatorship advocated by the leninists makes me much more of a marxist then they ever could be.

But in any case stop pretending you advocate the DotP. What you leninists advocate is completely different from what Marx advocated. You advocate a dictatorship of the party - your own elitist vanguardist party - OVER the proletariat.

So we both reject the DOTP - you from a leninist perspective, me from a basically marxist perspective. Sure I part company with Marx on this issue. I think his idea was flawed. But so what. The writings of Marx are not holy text but useful tools - or at least some of them are

Oh, I see, class conflict isn't material, it's conceptual. :rolleyes:
.

It is both actually. But I was talking about the material preconditions of communism. Do you understand what is meant by a "precondition"? No I guess not. Like I said, everyone knows exactly what is meant by the material preconditions of communism in contradicstinction to the precondition of mass communist consciousnesss - except you that is. It is perfectly well understood that this is a reference to the productive forces. So dont be such a pedantic prat

State ownership of all important industrial, transportation and financial enterprises (i.e. of the means of production and circulation), combined with legal (constitutional) suppression of the right to their private appropriation, centralized economic planning and state monopoly of foreign trade, imply the absence of generalized commodity production and the rule of the law of value in the USSR. This means that the economy is no longer capitalist. There is neither a market for large means of production nor for manpower, and labor-power has ceased to be a commodity.

Mandel continues:

So long as only partial commodity production survives, money does not and cannot have the same functions as under capitalism or even under petty commodity production; it cannot become large-scale capital, and only in marginal cases (“black market production”) does it become a means of direct exploitation of labor-power..

Mandel is talking utter rubbish here. His arguments were comprehensively refuted one by one in the book I cited in a previous post. The absence of de jure property rights does not mean there are not de facto property rights which are far more significant in a marxian sense. It is complete nonsense to suggest there was not generalised commodity production in the USSR. How can anyone possibly deny that goods and services were produced to be bought and sold on the market. Nor is it true that labour power was not a commodity - a regulated labour market is still a market!Workers still sell their labour power for a wage even though their abilitiy to struggle against the Soviet capitalist class was severely hampered by state oppression. Nor is it true that state managers did not resort to market mechanisms in the allocation of producer goods and if they did not they would still be subject to the law of value through the need to accummulate capital.

All of these claims have been totally discredited. Im surprised you even bring Mandel up in this connection. You should widen your reading list

Because former ruling classes which have been overthrown do not disappear simply by being out of power.

Did the nobility of France disappear even though it wasn't in power after the French Revolution? No, it came back into power. Does that mean the nobility were secretly in power during the Terror and the Directory? No, of course not. Only an idiot would say so.

You just did.

Only an idiot would make such an inept comparison. If the capitalists were somehow hiding away in the USSR, they couldnt have been doing much exploitation could they? They would have in fact been ex-capitalists in your terms. You even said in another post there was no exploitation in the USSR. So even on your own terms there could not have been capitalists to do the exploiting. Of course there were capitalists in the USSR in fact - albeit not in your narrow de jure terms - but unlike their counterparts in the west they did not require legal property rights as a class. Their ruthless control over all aspects of the state gave them the power to exercise de facto ownership of the means of production and to enrich themselves as a class in the process

bobroberts

16th February 2009, 11:20

I think the Free Access system would materially reward people for making socially undesirable decisions, and would therefore increase the repetition of those undesirable behaviors. The system would communicate to the individual: you can have as much material stuff as you want, including every existing kind of hobby equipment, and the use of all recreational facilities and the transportation to get to them -- and you also get to decide how long your vacation is to be. The individual is therefore rewarded to concoct the worst excuse: Geez, I genuinely need a whole lot of that stuff, so that I can be a complete person and live my life to the fullest extent -- and, in order to have enough time to enjoy it, I really need to work only about four weeks per year, and take forty-eight weeks of vacation. The result would be that consumption levels approach infinity, while production levels asymptotically approach zero, which presents a contradiction, and so the system must therefore collapse almost immediately. Rational socialist planning requires assuredness that we will have convergence to a mathematical solution where the rate at which people produce goods and the rate at which people consume goods will match closely. The Free Access system has no mechanism to see to it that they will match up.

The thing is that when an item is abundant, it is no longer desired and isn't consumed as much. For example, lobster used to be abundant in the US, so much so that it was given to slaves. Now it is a delicacy. People desire rare things as a symbol of social status. Giving people free milk or bread will not cause people to stock their houses up with bread only to watch it go moldy in a week, or stuffing their refrigerators full of milk only to watch it spoil, they will just take it as they need it. The only things that need to be determined are what the needs are, and how much labor and resources are required to fulfill them. If needs are determined as those things which humans require in order to live a healthy life, then why not let people live on only four hours of labor a week/month/year if that is all that is required to fulfill the needs of humanity? People are currently forced to spend hours of their life doing things which just don't need to be done in order to survive in the current system. In reality, the needs of everyone on earth could be met with only a fraction of that labor required. Beyond the labor required for needs, why shouldn't people be free to pursue their own interests?

ZeroNowhere

16th February 2009, 11:39

anarchism is not a form of socialism, anarchism denies the need for socialism, socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat, the working class as the ruling class, ruling in its interest, destroying capitalism and ensuring the triumph of workers interests over those of the bourgouisie.
Oh dear.
Alright, firstly, the dictatorship of the proletariat and communism (aka. socialism) are different. Secondly, yes, anarchists are socialists.

anarchists believe this "dictatorship of the proletariat" is not necessary, they believe we can move straight to a "communist" society, this is obviously bullshit, because if you don't destroy the power of the bourgouisie, if you don't dictate the new economic and social conditions then you will be doomed to failure.
I don't-
Alright, firstly, even ME admitted that the supposed 'fundamental difference' between anarchists and Marxists was shared by only 'many if not most' anarchists. Secondly, the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' could quite easily take the form of what most anarchists that use the Weberian definition of the 'state' would refer to as 'anarchy'. For example, the Spanish communes and such. I mean, I can't really make much sense of your argument otherwise.
Also, the word 'dictatorship' was only used by Marx in this way in repudiation of Blanqui's 'educational dictatorship' of a minority, generally, so the word 'dictate' isn't exactly the focus here.

anarchism, which personally, i have some sympathy with, cannot deliver the goods without the dictatorship of the proletariat, it's time will come, but you cannot have a "communist society" before a "socialist" one.
anarchy is the society after communism not before.
Anarchy is the... What?
Well, yes, it's possible that we would still have hierarchy initially in socialism, though no state or capital, but if that then died out, it would still be socialism.

If there was a dictatorship of the proletariat in place then it stands to reason that it would not possibly permit the capitalist class to exploit the proletariat and therefore its existence as a class would cease to be.
I believe I've already used the Spanish communes as an example of the DOTP? In that case, yes, within the communes there was no capitalist class. But there certainly was still a capitalist class, they were funding Franco. Or helping - or not - the anarchists, in the case of the Russian bourgeoisie. Clearly, their interests were competing with those of the proletariat, as they attempted to restore a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, and succeeded, and the revolting proletariat could "only use such economic means as abolish its own character as salariat, hence as class." Therefore, "With its complete victory its own rule thus also ends, as its class character has disappeared."
Interestingly, the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' was originally meant as a repudiation of Blanquist minority dictatorship. Oh dear.

In December of 2005, writer "Mercedes" in the WSM forum said to me, "Rewarding people hourly is the absolutely only way you can compel someone to work? Are you Pavlov's dog?" I replied, "Woof!"
:lol:

Do I reject the DotP then. Yes I do. Does that make me an anti-marxist? No I dont think so.
Eh, I've seen three interpretations of the DotP (or rule of the proletariat, a term that Marx used more often, since the DotP was primarily a repudiation of Blanquism) that aren't total bullcrap: Mike's, that it's basically the active expropriation of the expropriators and enforcement of such, though anything following that would, of course, not be the DotP, as the bourgeoisie wouldn't exist any more (sorry if I misrepresented your position, btw); that, as implied in my previous comment on the Spanish communes, it's the opposition of the 'dictatorship of the bourgeoisie', that is, classless within it (the proletariat having abolished their "character as salariat"), but with capitalism still existing externally, so that there is still a proletariat and bourgeoisie with competing class interests; and Rubel's view, "the dictatorship of the proletariat can be thought of as the domination of the immense majority in the interests of the immense majority; in other words, as the self-determination of the proletariat. In short, the proletariat is expected to realise the promises of complete democracy, of popular self-government, as opposed to partial (bourgeois) democracy, the institutions of which guarantee the dictatorship of the possessing class – of capital in control of political power and thus of a minority of society – over the non-possessing class, the immense majority of society." Other explanations tend to be rather silly, because, as you point out... 'Ex-capitalists' are not a class. Marx specified that the class rule of the proletariat would only exist "so long as the other classes, especially the capitalist class, still exists". When there is no capitalist class, there is, it would appear... Still no capitalist class.
Also, as Rubel pointed out, "Before October 1917 Lenin envisaged a form of workers’ and peasants’ self-government for Russia [This is debatable, but anyways]. Following the take-over of political power he moved towards the conception of a “dictatorship of the proletariat” which could be exercised through the “dictatorship of several individuals” or even by the “will of a single individual.” His conception was perfectly in keeping with the economic and social conditions of a country able to “develop” anything except ... Socialism. The dictatorship of the Party aimed to create not abolish a “Soviet” proletariat, and so to establish social relations compatible with the exploitation of wage labour and the domination of man by man. It is in this school, not the school of Marx, in which the leaders of the Communist Parties learned their politics."
Also somewhat relevant to the topic: "From the very outset the Commune was compelled to recognize that the working class, once come to power, could not go on managing with the old state machine; that... this working class must, on the one hand, do away with all the old repressive machinery previously used against it itself, and, on the other, safeguard itself against its own deputies and officials, by declaring them all, without exception, subject to recall at any moment."

Bakunin: "So the result is: guidance of the great majority of the people by a privileged minority. But this minority, say the Marxists..."
Marx: "Where?"
Bakunin: "... will consist of workers. Certainly, with your permission, of former workers, who however, as soon as they have become representatives or governors of the people, cease to be workers..."
Marx: "As little as a factory owner today ceases to be a capitalist if he becomes a municipal councillor..."
Bakunin: "and look down on the whole common workers' world from the height of the state. They will no longer represent the people, but themselves and their pretensions to people's government. Anyone who can doubt this knows nothing of the nature of men."
Marx: "If Mr Bakunin only knew something about the position of a manager in a workers' cooperative factory, all his dreams of domination would go to the devil. He should have asked himself what form the administrative function can take on the basis of this workers' state, if he wants to call it that." (In other words, the 'government' would carry out only administrative functions like a manager in a workers' co-operative factory, for example, in the case of the central directing authority of De Leonism.)

“... If you look at the last chapter of my Eighteenth Brumaire, you will find that I declare: the next French Revolution will no longer attempt to transfer the bureaucratic-military apparatus from one hand to another, but to smash it, and this is the precondition for every real people’s revolution on the Continent.”

“All socialists see anarchy as the following program: Once the aim of the proletarian movement – i.e., abolition of classes – is attained, the power of the state, which serves to keep the great majority of producers in bondage to a very small exploiter minority, disappears, and the functions of government become simple administrative functions.”

"The dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors" (by Lenin. The Communist Party decrees that 'Proletariat' is now to be spelled p-a-r-t-y. :rolleyes:)

Eh, either way, I hardly ever use the term, and don't care much about its meaning except to stress that it doesn't have anything to do with neo-Blanquism. It doesn't hold much significance to how a revolution is to be carried out, as the only way in which is a suggestion is in repudiation of Blanquism, and it certainly doesn't contain any aspects which are not anarchistic, unless one is to define the difference between 'anarchism' and 'Marxism' as 'analysis of the state', which is somewhat pointless. Certainly, the Marxist use of the term 'state' differs from the Weberian definition and similar ones (which is why Marx, referring to Bakunin's use of the term "workers' state", said "if you must call it that"), but last I checked, anarchism was not defined by, 'opposition to hierarchy, the the use of the Weberian definition, or similar, of the state.' Of course, I also like to avoid using the term 'state' to avoid confusion (except references to the capitalist state), and, of course, the term 'state capitalism' doesn't really use the Marxist definition either, but 'state it it's political sense capitalism' just ain't as catchy. :D

State ownership of all important industrial, transportation and financial enterprises (i.e. of the means of production and circulation), combined with legal (constitutional) suppression of the right to their private appropriation, centralized economic planning and state monopoly of foreign trade, imply the absence of generalized commodity production and the rule of the law of value in the USSR. This means that the economy is no longer capitalist.
No, it does not.

Because former ruling classes which have been overthrown do not disappear simply by being out of power.
Yes, they do disappear as a class. Them then taking power as a class is no different than anybody else doing so, and certainly does not imply that they were ever a class during the period after which they were overthrown. Proletarians who want to become bourgeois are not bourgeois, regardless of whether they are ex-capitalists or not.

When the bourgeoisie was developing, but hadn't yet taken power, did it exist? Yes.
Irrelevant.

When the monarchy had been overthrown in England and France, did it still exist? Yes, of course, both royal lines were restored to power eventually.
Which has nothing to do with their existence while they were overthrown. If Alonso had gotten into the top three for one race, then got knocked off by Sutil, but then comes first next race, he still wasn't on the podium for the second race.

If it is a state of the proletariat, then it will know the interests of the workers quite intimately.
What.

The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.

They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.
Your argument does not follow at all. At all.
So, can we have something concrete, like, say, "I call for party dictatorship, and am stating it clearly now so that you can offer an argument for me doing so without grasping at straws"?

Post-Something

16th February 2009, 13:01

Every party everywhere follows the currents of class conflict, they don't have inherent interests unto themselves. Since class conflict is the basis of society, it is simply unscientific to say that any party can invent interests unique to itself.

Alright, this argument is a little flawed. People do have inherent interests unto themselves. Remaining in power. How on earth is that "unscientific"? People get put into a position of power, get lot's of respect, of course they're going to be protective about their job. And when those personal interests conflict with the peoples conflict, hey presto! the party doesn't represent the people!

This applies to both sides of the argument. If you call the CPC "capitalist" (which just isn't true, but that's beside the point), you are saying the party is following the interests of the capitalist class; if you call the CPC socialist, you are saying it is following the interests of the working class. By the way, that also holds true if you employ Trotsky's analysis.

No. This is an old Marxist dogma. The state doesn't have to work in the interests of one specific group in society. Look around you. To say otherwise is simplifying it so much it becomes meaningless.

The isolation of the Russian Revolution, the economic backwardness of the former Russian Empire, the disappearence of Russia's urban populations and the threat of imperialism and capitalist elements (anti-socialist kulaks, the Whites, imperialist invasions, etc.).

That's a bit more reasonable then saying the party was a bunch of greedy mean bureaucrats.

Uh-huh? These are the four things you're taught to say whenever someone criticizes the USSR and you want to give some sort of justification. But if you actually look closely, you haven't answered my question yet:

Why did democracy deteriorate in the USSR?

I agree, but this isn't always possible. Democratic mechanisms are incredibly important, and that is why Cuba has maintained such a vital socialist society for so long under so much pressure. However, to blindly say this is always possible under all conditions is just narrow-minded. Russia is one example of this.

Oh for Gods sake, Cuba's not democratic, and you haven't explained to me why the USSR wasn't either.

Further, Cuba has shown that "centralized" states (as if any modern state could be anything but centralized) can be run under fully democratic principles. That's the point, the workers run the thing.

...no.

Imperialism always had hegemony on a global scale. For crying out loud, the British colonialists had international hegemony by the mid 19th Century. This is, once again, nothing new.

It hadn't been theorized. The point of hegemony is that it's done without threat or direct violence.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that the working class don't identify themselves on class based terms anymore. They will not unite under one class banner. So the idea is to make socialism not something you "need", but something you "want". And that is why the stress for democracy is a must.

Revolution is possible in developed countries, and the struggles in Europe and the American crisis just underline this potential further. Germany, a developed capitalist nation, saw many strong revolutionary movements in 1919 and 1920. It's unhelpful to be defeatist about the prospect of revolution.

The thing is, it's not just one country which needs a revolution, it's like two thirds of the world.

Point taken. If you disagree with Lenin, that's one thing, but you came off like you were criticizing the whole of Marxism, which is why I replied in the first place.

I'm a Marxist to some degree, although I'm critical of some aspects.

It was essentially forced into such strong measures by the conditions of the time. Again, the isolation of the revolution, the economic backwardness of the new state, the disappearence of urban populations and capitalist aggression all took their toll.

But...according to Lenin the dictatorship of the proletariat exists to supress other classes in society, right? So when those elements have been "liquidized", you would think the party would sort of back off a bit? At least according to Lenin. But, according to what you said, the state looked down upon the revolutionary society of the USSR and bellowed:

"whew, works done here boys! good job!...oh wait...there's not so many "urban populations"!...fuck...shit man, what are we gonna do?...I know! Let's REMAIN IN POWER FOREVER! K? K!

The reasons you gave don't answer the question.

More importantly, though, the point of revolution is to take power, not disperse it.

No, the point of revolution is to disperse power amongst the people. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Revolution IS working-class power, and so the workers must retain this power through a state which defends their interests by force.

No, that's called state power. What influence did the average worker have on this state? effectively none.

Cumannach

16th February 2009, 13:17

But...according to Lenin the dictatorship of the proletariat exists to supress other classes in society, right? So when those elements have been "liquidized", you would think the party would sort of back off a bit? At least according to Lenin. But, according to what you said, the state looked down upon the revolutionary society of the USSR and bellowed:

"whew, works done here boys! good job!...oh wait...there's not so many "urban populations"!...fuck...shit man, what are we gonna do?...I know! Let's REMAIN IN POWER FOREVER! K? K!

You've got it backwards. The seizing of the state power from the bourgeoisie is the not the end of the Revolution. It's the beginning. It's not, 'good job, well done, let's go home'. It's 'let's get started'.

The other classes in the USSR were not 'liquidized'. They continued to exist, but they didn't have the monopoly of state power. The biggest class in the USSR after the Revolution were the small peasant proprietors and the rising rural petty bourgeoisie. There were also private traders and private small businesses. There were classes of capitalists on every border waiting for a good time to pounce. Lenin and the Bolsheviks couldn't just click their fingers and announce communism. That would have been the defeat of the Revolution. They had to move towards it through successive policies, and the only policies they could rely on were ones which would not lead to their losing the grip on state power, which would just result in the restoration of the bourgeoisie.

ZeroNowhere

16th February 2009, 13:24

No. This is an old Marxist dogma. The state doesn't have to work in the interests of one specific group in society. Look around you.
I am. I don't see your point, however.
Though yes, it doesn't have to, it's just that capital strike isn't a lovely experience, or so I am told.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that the working class don't identify themselves on class based terms anymore. They will not unite under one class banner.
Yes, they generally don't. As for what the working class will or won't do in the future, that's just baseless speculation. On the other hand, if you mean, "The working class will currently not unite under one class banner," then yes, but that would be fairly obvious.

Post-Something

16th February 2009, 14:48

You've got it backwards. The seizing of the state power from the bourgeoisie is the not the end of the Revolution. It's the beginning. It's not, 'good job, well done, let's go home'. It's 'let's get started'.

The other classes in the USSR were not 'liquidized'. They continued to exist, but they didn't have the monopoly of state power. The biggest class in the USSR after the Revolution were the small peasant proprietors and the rising rural petty bourgeoisie. There were also private traders and private small businesses. There were classes of capitalists on every border waiting for a good time to pounce. Lenin and the Bolsheviks couldn't just click their fingers and announce communism. That would have been the defeat of the Revolution. They had to move towards it through successive policies, and the only policies they could rely on were ones which would not lead to their losing the grip on state power, which would just result in the restoration of the bourgeoisie.

Yes, but the thing is, after the state is seized, you would expect the other classes to weaken. The party kept concentrating power into it's own hands. Russia in 1917 is not even comparable to the soviet union later on in terms of democracy. If the other classes are weakening, that doesn't explain the levels of authoritarianism rising.

Post-Something

16th February 2009, 14:54

I am. I don't see your point, however.
Though yes, it doesn't have to, it's just that capital strike isn't a lovely experience, or so I am told.

It was just to help illustrate the point that the party doesn't necessarilly have to collerate with the interests of the working class.

Yes, they generally don't. As for what the working class will or won't do in the future, that's just baseless speculation. On the other hand, if you mean, "The working class will currently not unite under one class banner," then yes, but that would be fairly obvious.

I meant the latter. Again, I'm using it to illustrate the point that perhaps we need another strategy.

BobKKKindle$

16th February 2009, 15:13

Material conditions aren't just about technology, they're about class conflictThis point is completely right, and the crux of the issue at hand, but we need to explore it a little further. The material conditions for the realization of communism may currently exist in terms of us having sufficient technology and productive capacity to eliminate intense material scarcity, but it would be wrong to assume on this basis that an immediate transition to communism can take place following the overthrow of capitalism and the bourgeois state. This conclusion does not follow, because class struggle also exists in the form of struggle between different sets of ideas, and communism can only be attained once this struggle has been resolved in favor of the revolutionary proletariat, such that a transition will be required as long as class struggle in the ideological spheres continues to exist. By ideological class struggle, we mean that even when the proletariat has expropriated the means of production, and established its own political rule in the form of the workers state, the ideology of capitalist society will still influence the way people interact with each other and view the external world. There are different sources of capitalist ideology in a post-revolutionary society and the relative strength of each source depends on the conditions of the country in which a revolution has taken place - in Russia, an underdeveloped country in which the industrial proletariat accounted for only a small share of the working population, concentrated in a small number of urban centers, the main source of capitalist ideology was the class of petty-bourgeois producers in the countryside, as the existence of private property in land and commodity transactions in agricultural goods created a material basis for an individualistic and profit-seeking outlook amongst the peasantry. In other countries, the proximity of hostile capitalist powers undermines the socialist superstructure and poses the threat of capitalist restoration. In essence we can see that having a socialist mode of production (i.e. collective ownership and control of the means of production) does not guarantee that there will be a corresponding socialist superstructure, especially when a post-revolutionary society is faced with prolonged isolation and encirclement by hostile capitalist powers. How does this relate to communism? If capitalist ideology is predominant, adopting a system of distribution that depends on everyone being conscious of society's needs and willing to regulate their own consumption without any form of monetary restraint is not feasible. Instead, it will be necessary for the workers state to pay people according to how much they work, in order to create material incentives for productive labour, such that if someone is willing to work for a longer period of time, or perform more difficult forms of labour, they should be entitled to a greater share of society's collective output than someone who is lazy. This idea is nothing new, as Marx made exactly the same argument in 'Critique of the Gotha Programme':

"What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it"

Critique of the Gotha Programme, Part I, 1875 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm)

Marx's reference to the "birthmarks of the old society" refers primarily to the prevalence of capitalist ideology.

al8

16th February 2009, 15:42

But how does one avoid not simply getting stuck in a transitional limbo? I don't want to work towards half a step and thus never moving anywhere. I would be pointless. Why not simply build on a communist foundation (production for demand, no buying and selling) from day one a and deal with it. Instead of purposely holding back and retarding ones advance. It's like Engles said if one aims at moderation one achieves nothing.

ZeroNowhere

16th February 2009, 15:59

But how does one avoid not simply getting stuck in a transitional limbo? I don't want to work towards half a step and thus never moving anywhere.
Abolishing capitalism would be 'half a step'?

I would be pointless. Why not simply build on a communist foundation (production for demand, no buying and selling) from day one a and deal with it.
It's quite simple. Rewarding people for working works. If it's working fine, we can slowly decrease labour credit usage and such, and, if consumption is too high and production too low, we'll have to use labour credits more. There's no need to take a leap of faith and hope for the best, and then cutback if it doesn't work; we should start from a system of rewards, which doesn't rely as much on 'the majority of the people will do so and so without encouragement' for no reason (As Mike said, "Woof!"). If that works out, we can go further towards free access. Certainly, immediately after a revolution in an area (and yes, we aren't going to have a revolution everywhere successfully at the same time), we can't just rely on people working suddenly giving up enjoyable activities for work out of the goods of their hearts, and we can't immediately wave the Wand of Socialism and make all work enjoyable; that is, we've still got an economy to run.

mikelepore

16th February 2009, 17:29

The thing is that when an item is abundant, it is no longer desired and isn't consumed as much. For example, lobster used to be abundant in the US, so much so that it was given to slaves. Now it is a delicacy. People desire rare things as a symbol of social status.

That sounds topsy-turvy to me. You mean, if electronic appliances, hobby supplies, etc. are abundant -- which means they must be abundant precisely because people keep consuming them a lot, and therefore industry has to keep making them as fast as people consume them -- then, due to that abundance, people won't be consuming them as much? One part of it contradicts another part.

Giving people free milk or bread will not cause people to stock their houses up with bread only to watch it go moldy in a week, or stuffing their refrigerators full of milk only to watch it spoil, they will just take it as they need it.

I'm certain you're right about such perishables as milk and bread, which is why I selected the examples as hobby equipment, recreational facilities, and traveling around on vacations.

The only things that need to be determined are what the needs are, and how much labor and resources are required to fulfill them. If needs are determined as those things which humans require in order to live a healthy life, then why not let people live on only four hours of labor a week/month/year if that is all that is required to fulfill the needs of humanity? People are currently forced to spend hours of their life doing things which just don't need to be done in order to survive in the current system. In reality, the needs of everyone on earth could be met with only a fraction of that labor required. Beyond the labor required for needs, why shouldn't people be free to pursue their own interests?

The issue isn't that we might only need to work four and not forty hours a week. The issue is that, if four are necessary, then those who work two, or one, or zero -- of which there might be an ever increasing number -- would be abusing those who do show up to work the socially necessary four hours. Those who show up to work might now have to work ten or fifteen, in order to bear the load of those who work zero, and thereby get society's average back up to the necessary four. Such a system would be another form of exploitation.

Socialism also needs to be sure that labor will be done in just the right places. There's a planning catastrophe if an inadequate number of people are performing those types of work which are no one's hobbies, such as operating mines, refineries, mills and factories, because too many people are selecting types of work which are often individuals' hobbies, such as the arts. As one critic in the WSM forum said some years ago, "Do you think I'm going to hammer nails into your roof, so that you can play your guitar?" Compensation proportional to personal labor is needed to make socialism efficient.

al8

16th February 2009, 17:33

Abolishing capitalism would be 'half a step'?

Yes if what takes it's place is to all purposes identical to capitalism. That is just some transitional limbo that promises to move towards socialism>communism but doesn't.

It's quite simple. Rewarding people for working works. If it's working fine, we can slowly decrease labour credit usage and such, and, if consumption is too high and production too low, we'll have to use labour credits more. There's no need to take a leap of faith and hope for the best, and then cutback if it doesn't work; we should start from a system of rewards, which doesn't rely as much on 'the majority of the people will do so and so without encouragement' for no reason (As Mike said, "Woof!"). If that works out, we can go further towards free access. Certainly, immediately after a revolution in an area (and yes, we aren't going to have a revolution everywhere successfully at the same time), we can't just rely on people working suddenly giving up enjoyable activities for work out of the goods of their hearts, and we can't immediately wave the Wand of Socialism and make all work enjoyable; that is, we've still got an economy to run.

Why is it that we can't begin all the way when there is momentum and then perhaps start minor renumerations for diffucult unwanted tasks?

For example if garbage collection is difficult to man, either the way garbage collection takes place needs to change, the burden needs to be shared between more persons or there can be several ways in which to renumerate or favor those who would choose this line of work such as geting prioritized in ques for luxury products (or products in general). For example if this hypothetical individual has a demand for a special quitar and orders it. This quitar is only produced in 10 units a month. There are 40 people that have already ordered this kind of quitar and our hypothetical garbage collection worker is nr.41. If he is favored by being part of a renumeration scheme he would get to go ahead all other favored ind. and say be then nr. 7 in the que. Thus getting the guitar the same month as ordered instead of 4 months later.
This is all a matter of policy choice. There are many other variations of this that should not go so far as to reintroduce the poison of capitalist logic by intirely copying a capitalist organisational setup.

I suggest we aim at what we aim and give tactical conssessions only grugingly instead of doing it backwards; aiming at consessions because these certain consessions (wages, buying and selling) have been shown to "work" in a capitalist setting.

What I am afraid of, with taking up the organisational forms of the previous society (wage slavery, money, buying and selling) in the building of a new and different society, is that without their abolition and taking up production for real demand (as opposed to demand through purchasing power), that there will simply not be the inherent societal pressure from the ground-up to instate and solidify communism but a gravitation to all the old ways of doing things i.e capitalism.

manic expression

16th February 2009, 21:46

This has got to be one of the battiest arguments I have ever heard! Lets look at it. I asked you to explain how a proletariat can be in a position to dictate to the capitalists and yet allow the capitalists to continue exploiting the proles (by definition this has happen or else there would be no capitalists by virtue of there being no exploitation - geddit?). .

They weren't exploiting the proletariat during the USSR because there was no private property.

The relationship between workers and capitalists is organically linked via a process of exploitation in the way that the relationship between the monarchy and the capitalist is not.

First of all, that's completely irrelevant. We're talking about former ruling classes vs present ruling classes, their exact relationship is completely irrelevant.

What does a king do? He rules over a country and aquires wealth through imposed "divine right". That is his role. However, the kings of France didn't go away once the revolution rolled around, they still existed and still tried to reestablish their order, which they did in 1815.

But it is simply inconceivable that a working class can be in a position to dictate terms AND allow itself to be exploited. Er.. the one kinda cancels out the other, dont you think?

The bourgeoisie can exist without being in power. Part of this means that the bourgeoisie can exist WHILE being deprived of the means with which to exploit the proletariat.

Marx said somewhere that the proletariat would be the last class to achieve its emancipation and by doing so would emancipate humanity form class oppression. The working class capturing political power represents and can only logically represent its complete abolition as a subject class along with the class that previously exploited it

The end of the bourgeoisie doesn't happen with the workers' conquest of political power.

Do you deny the existence of capitalists in Paris during the Commune?

Do I reject the DotP then. Yes I do. Does that make me an anti-marxist?

Yeah, it does. You're a confused anarchist.

No I dont think so. I would say that by and large my advocacy of a communist society as opposed to the state capitalist dictatorship advocated by the leninists makes me much more of a marxist then they ever could be.

The fact that you think "state capitalism" can be applied to the USSR shows us that, in addition to not being a Marxist, you stubbornly ignore the facts presented to you countless times.

But in any case stop pretending you advocate the DotP. What you leninists advocate is completely different from what Marx advocated. You advocate a dictatorship of the party - your own elitist vanguardist party - OVER the proletariat.

I've already explained this one, kid. Try reading what I've written.

To Marx, the communists have no interests separate from the proletariat. Therefore, a dictatorship of the proletariat would inherently entail a dictatorship of the party.

Go read the Manifesto, you have no idea what Marxism is.

So we both reject the DOTP

Like I said, a pathetic strawman.

It is both actually. But I was talking about the material preconditions of communism. Do you understand what is meant by a "precondition"? No I guess not. Like I said, everyone knows exactly what is meant by the material preconditions of communism in contradicstinction to the precondition of mass communist consciousnesss - except you that is. It is perfectly well understood that this is a reference to the productive forces. So dont be such a pedantic prat

As has been explained already, class conflict is wholly material and thus central to the material preconditions of communism.

However, your rejection of class conflict is just another reason why you're not a Marxist.

Mandel is talking utter rubbish here. His arguments were comprehensively refuted one by one in the book I cited in a previous post.

Right, because in the last thread, you suddenly disappeared as soon as I started posting these passages.

Let it be known that you're still avoiding the subject.

The absence of de jure property rights does not mean there are not de facto property rights which are far more significant in a marxian sense.

You have yet to prove the existence of "de facto" private property.

You have yet to prove the existence of a "de facto" capitalist class.

You have yet to prove the existence of "de facto" commodity production

You have yet to make an argument.

It is complete nonsense to suggest there was not generalised commodity production in the USSR. How can anyone possibly deny that goods and services were produced to be bought and sold on the market.

What market? The world market? The state had a monopoly on international trade, and no bureaucrats profited directly from these transactions. The domestic market? It was relegated to illegal and marginal activities. You have nothing.

Nor is it true that labour power was not a commodity - a regulated labour market is still a market!

Yes, it would be.

Now all you have to do is prove one existed in the USSR! Have fun.

Workers still sell their labour power for a wage even though their abilitiy to struggle against the Soviet capitalist class was severely hampered by state oppression. Nor is it true that state managers did not resort to market mechanisms in the allocation of producer goods and if they did not they would still be subject to the law of value through the need to accummulate capital.

What "market mechanisms" are you talking about? These things were eradicated by the 30's and they didn't come back until Gorbachev and Yeltsin.

You keep babbling unsupported and nonsensical claims. As an anti-Marxist is wont to do.

All of these claims have been totally discredited. Im surprised you even bring Mandel up in this connection. You should widen your reading list

You should read what I posted instead of desperately trying to change the subject.

Only an idiot would make such an inept comparison. If the capitalists were somehow hiding away in the USSR, they couldnt have been doing much exploitation could they? They would have in fact been ex-capitalists in your terms. You even said in another post there was no exploitation in the USSR. So even on your own terms there could not have been capitalists to do the exploiting. Of course there were capitalists in the USSR in fact - albeit not in your narrow de jure terms - but unlike their counterparts in the west they did not require legal property rights as a class. Their ruthless control over all aspects of the state gave them the power to exercise de facto ownership of the means of production and to enrich themselves as a class in the process

Capitalists can exist without being in power. After having been deprived of the means to control societies, ruling classes continue to exist.

In the case of the feudal nobles, even though most of them were kicked out of France and thus deprived of the means with which to exploit the peasantry, they continued to exist and eventually restored their positions to a large extent.

You keep running away from this simple fact in favor of your baseless garbage about secret capitalists in positions which were un-capitalist. Bureaucrats didn't own property, they didn't employ workers, they owned no stocks and no bonds.

But don't let Marxism stop you from calling the Soviet Union "capitalist", it's what's expected of anti-socialists.

revolution inaction

16th February 2009, 21:46

That sounds topsy-turvy to me. You mean, if electronic appliances, hobby supplies, etc. are abundant -- which means they must be abundant precisely because people keep consuming them a lot, and therefore industry has to keep making them as fast as people consume them -- then, due to that abundance, people won't be consuming them as much? One part of it contradicts another part.

Abundant means there is lots available not that lots are consumed.

The issue isn't that we might only need to work four and not forty hours a week. The issue is that, if four are necessary, then those who work two, or one, or zero -- of which there might be an ever increasing number -- would be abusing those who do show up to work the socially necessary four hours. Those who show up to work might now have to work ten or fifteen, in order to bear the load of those who work zero, and thereby get society's average back up to the necessary four. Such a system would be another form of exploitation.

I always say that "From each according to ability, to each according to need" means that if you are able to contribute to society but choose not to, then you can't expect society to meet your needs.

manic expression

16th February 2009, 22:06

Alright, this argument is a little flawed. People do have inherent interests unto themselves. Remaining in power. How on earth is that "unscientific"? People get put into a position of power, get lot's of respect, of course they're going to be protective about their job. And when those personal interests conflict with the peoples conflict, hey presto! the party doesn't represent the people!

People's individual interests are always connected to their class. What's good for the ruling class is good for each member, and they recognize this. That is why they remain in power, not through some Hobbesian obsession with authority. To be sure, some individuals lust after power and glory, but we must not forget that they cannot achieve such ends without navigating the currents of class conflict. A Napoleon would be impossible without a Tennis Court Oath, a Hitler would be impossible without a Freikorps. The point is that individuals and their ambitions are always subject and subordinate to class dynamics in a given society.

No. This is an old Marxist dogma. The state doesn't have to work in the interests of one specific group in society. Look around you. To say otherwise is simplifying it so much it becomes meaningless.

I am looking around me, and it looks a lot like the capitalist state is working in the interests of the capitalist class. The police force, the army, the justice system, the electoral process; all institutions which work for the interests of the bourgeoisie. I could go through each one (and others) in detail, but that's the long and short of it.

Uh-huh? These are the four things you're taught to say whenever someone criticizes the USSR and you want to give some sort of justification. But if you actually look closely, you haven't answered my question yet:

Why did democracy deteriorate in the USSR?

They're not justifications and I didn't give them in such a way. It's unfair of you to assume so.

They are, in fact, explanations for the question you asked. Democratic mechanisms are incredibly difficult to sustain in such environments of collapse and external and internal threats. If there's practically no significant working class by 1922, how do you expect them to practice working-class democracy? If there are threats from within and without, including the greatest threat to humanity history has ever known, how do you expect them to go to the ballot box with such regularity? Isolated and under siege, the revolution had to be made to withstand these pressures in order to survive: the reduction of democracy was part of this.

Oh for Gods sake, Cuba's not democratic, and you haven't explained to me why the USSR wasn't either.

Don't be too quick to believe this just because it's been repeated over and over. Please read the link on the left hand side "Democracy and Cuba"

http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html (http://members.allstream.net/%7Edchris/CubaFAQ.html)

Note: it cites its claims with reliable sources.

It hadn't been theorized. The point of hegemony is that it's done without threat or direct violence.

Then imperialism today isn't "hegemony", in which case it's a useless term.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that the working class don't identify themselves on class based terms anymore. They will not unite under one class banner. So the idea is to make socialism not something you "need", but something you "want". And that is why the stress for democracy is a must.

It was never that clear-cut. Do you think the workers of 1848 thought of themselves completely as workers? The working-class uprising in Hungary of that year was fueled mostly by cries of nationalism. A lot of the insurrectionary workers of Paris in 1871 just hated Napoleon III more than anything else. Class consciousness has never been concrete and unchanging and it never will be, it's something that comes to the fore when class conflict is pointed.

And they might not unite under "one class banner", but they never did. They went to the red flag because they saw the Bolsheviks promoting their interests and fighting the capitalists. Again, stop wrongly reducing Marxism to such ridiculous conclusions, it's just misrepresentation at its worst.

The thing is, it's not just one country which needs a revolution, it's like two thirds of the world.

Building socialism in one country doesn't mean you neglect revolution elsewhere. Stalin, while much criticized for not funding revolutions, did a GREAT deal to defend the Spanish Republic against Franco. He was even the guy who got the Soviet Union to invade Poland during the Civil War, in the hopes of spreading Bolshevism to central Europe. I don't even support him, but you can't ignore these contributions.

But...according to Lenin the dictatorship of the proletariat exists to supress other classes in society, right? So when those elements have been "liquidized", you would think the party would sort of back off a bit? At least according to Lenin. But, according to what you said, the state looked down upon the revolutionary society of the USSR and bellowed:

"whew, works done here boys! good job!...oh wait...there's not so many "urban populations"!...fuck...shit man, what are we gonna do?...I know! Let's REMAIN IN POWER FOREVER! K? K!

There were plenty of counterrevolutionary elements throughout Soviet society. They were defeated to a large extent, but they continued to exist and eventually reared their heads in the 80's. However, just because those elements were defeated doesn't mean you can undo the effects of the previous years. The Soviet state was fundamentally shaped by those tumultuous years of 1922-1945, and you can't just turn back the clock after it's all over.

It's like expecting Rome to tear down their walls just because they beat the Gauls. The walls remain, for better or worse.

No, the point of revolution is to disperse power amongst the people. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Every revolution consists of one class taking power from a former ruling class and enforcing its rule. The working-class revolution is no different, because this is how revolutions operate. Revolution doesn't disperse power, it puts it into new hands.

That's why working-class revolutions which utilized state power have succeeded.

No, that's called state power. What influence did the average worker have on this state? effectively none.

Yes, that's true, but it's also true that the state was still progressive and working in the interests of that worker. Just see what happened when the Soviet Union fell and you know exactly what that means.

Further, if you review the link I posted, you'll see that Cuba DOES operate on fully democratic grounds.

BobKKKindle$

16th February 2009, 22:25

No, the point of revolution is to disperse power amongst the people. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. PS, with respect, this is a very problematic statement. The expression "the people" is fundamentally meaningless, as Marxists recognize that power is always exercised in the interests of a class, specifically the ruling class, which, in the context of a capitalist society, means the bourgeoisie. This does not mean that the people who make up the state have no interests of their own, or that everything the state does will always reflect the immediate interests of the bourgeoisie, as Engels explicitly recognized that the state may attain a level of independence during periods of intense class conflict and social upheaval, but it does mean that the idea of a state representing the whole of society instead of a section of it is fundamentally opposed to the Marxist analysis of the state, and has more in common with the liberal or social-democratic analysis. The socialist revolution involves the proletariat taking power into its own hands and exercising its dictatorship over the rest of society (by means of a centralized state, exercising coercion without restraint) until the remnants of the bourgeoisie and all other hostile elements have been defeated, at which point there is no longer a need for the state to exist, given the state is always a product of class antagonisms, and an organ of class power, and so the state begins to whither away and convert itself into a purely administrative body, existing solely to regulate production and distribution. In countries suffering from a lack of economic development due to the effects of imperialism, such as Russia, the proletariat may find that it lacks the strength to take power and govern on its own, and so will be forced to enter into an alliance involving other class forces such as the peasantry and the petty-bourgeoisie, but even in these cases the alliance is not an alliance of equals - the proletariat always retains its leading role, as the only class with the ability to construct socialism, and the state takes the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Rawthentic

16th February 2009, 22:45

I think we need to be careful when we mention that the dictatorship of the proletariat will cease to exist and get to communism when it is through eliminating the opposition.

This is why I think there is a lot to be learned from the GPCR. The masses of people (workers, peasants, intellectuals, etc) need to take up the questions of socialism and capitalism and apply them in political struggle. Not only does can this identify, isolate, and neutralize the enemy, but it heightens consciousness in the process (and without that we can't proceed to communism).

BobKKKindle$

16th February 2009, 22:53

I think we need to be careful when we mention that the dictatorship of the proletariat will cease to exist and get to communism when it is through eliminating the opposition.Of course, we should understand "opposition" in the broad sense, referring not just to external class enemies who openly conduct ideological and military struggle against the political power of the working class, but also to internal enemies, who may try to undermine the struggle for socialism by covert means without revealing their ultimate intentions, operating inside the party apparatus, and supporting capitalist attitudes. This is especially true when a country is surrounded by hostile imperialist powers, as in the case of Russia, and Lenin understood this.

John Lenin

17th February 2009, 00:35

"If Socialism can only be realized when the intellectual development of all the people permits it, then we shall not see Socialism for at least five hundred years."

~ Vladimir Lenin

ZeroNowhere

17th February 2009, 08:02

Yes if what takes it's place is to all purposes identical to capitalism. That is just some transitional limbo that promises to move towards socialism>communism but doesn't.
Labour credits and socialism/communism aren't incompatible. Wages and socialism, yes, but Krakinpot misusing the word 'wages' isn't our problem.
Also, labour credits are for all purposes identical to capitalism? I don't think that even the 'true socialists want free access!' dudes in the WSM are going to try that. Oh, what the hell. What makes capitalism capitalism?

Post-Something

17th February 2009, 17:44

PS, with respect, this is a very problematic statement. The expression "the people" is fundamentally meaningless, as Marxists recognize that power is always exercised in the interests of a class, specifically the ruling class, which, in the context of a capitalist society, means the bourgeoisie. This does not mean that the people who make up the state have no interests of their own, or that everything the state does will always reflect the immediate interests of the bourgeoisie, as Engels explicitly recognized that the state may attain a level of independence during periods of intense class conflict and social upheaval, but it does mean that the idea of a state representing the whole of society instead of a section of it is fundamentally opposed to the Marxist analysis of the state, and has more in common with the liberal or social-democratic analysis. The socialist revolution involves the proletariat taking power into its own hands and exercising its dictatorship over the rest of society (by means of a centralized state, exercising coercion without restraint) until the remnants of the bourgeoisie and all other hostile elements have been defeated, at which point there is no longer a need for the state to exist, given the state is always a product of class antagonisms, and an organ of class power, and so the state begins to whither away and convert itself into a purely administrative body, existing solely to regulate production and distribution. In countries suffering from a lack of economic development due to the effects of imperialism, such as Russia, the proletariat may find that it lacks the strength to take power and govern on its own, and so will be forced to enter into an alliance involving other class forces such as the peasantry and the petty-bourgeoisie, but even in these cases the alliance is not an alliance of equals - the proletariat always retains its leading role, as the only class with the ability to construct socialism, and the state takes the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

I agree with what you say, but I have a couple of things to point out:

1. Is the proletariat always the only class able to construct socialism? In this day in age, they have more to lose than their chains.

2. I never said the state represents the whole of society, I'm saying it represents various interest groups in society, and it would be stupid and simplistic to say "this state is a bourgeois state". For example, in a lot of corporatist states, unions play an absolutely massive role, take Austria for example.

3. A lot of problems I'm having in this thread is with the economic determinism inherent in a lot of peoples arguments. As such, not all actions are enacted based on class, what about social issues like abortion and euthanasia? how can these possibly be class biased when they are good for everyone? I know you're going to say, well people have to pay for them, but that doesn't offer the bourgeoisie an upper hand in anything.

Anyway, take what I'm saying in this thread with a grain of salt. I'm just testing out where I really stand in terms of the state. I think I will post a thread in OI about the real issues I'm interested in debating and forgetting about this one anyway.

al8

17th February 2009, 18:11

Labour credits and socialism/communism aren't incompatible. Wages and socialism, yes, but Krakinpot misusing the word 'wages' isn't our problem.
Also, labour credits are to all purposes identical to capitalism? I don't think that even the 'true socialists want free access!' dudes in the WSM are going to try that. Oh, what the hell. What makes capitalism capitalism?

There are several aspects that make up capitalism but lets focus on wages. Tell me how Kropotkin misuses the word wages.

In capitalism if one dosn't pimp oneself out to some place of work for a wage (where one btw does not have any significant say in how things are run), one faces want.
In your socialism if one dosn't pimp oneself out to some place of work for a wage/payment/money/etc. one faces want, just as with capitalism. How is the latter not a wage while the former one is?

Without a change of systems I cannot see where the pressure for automation is going to stem from. Since the state will inevitably want to increase profits and put improvements on hold.

Post-Something

17th February 2009, 19:01

People's individual interests are always connected to their class. What's good for the ruling class is good for each member, and they recognize this. That is why they remain in power, not through some Hobbesian obsession with authority. To be sure, some individuals lust after power and glory, but we must not forget that they cannot achieve such ends without navigating the currents of class conflict. A Napoleon would be impossible without a Tennis Court Oath, a Hitler would be impossible without a Freikorps. The point is that individuals and their ambitions are always subject and subordinate to class dynamics in a given society.

I am looking around me, and it looks a lot like the capitalist state is working in the interests of the capitalist class. The police force, the army, the justice system, the electoral process; all institutions which work for the interests of the bourgeoisie. I could go through each one (and others) in detail, but that's the long and short of it.

They're not justifications and I didn't give them in such a way. It's unfair of you to assume so.

They are, in fact, explanations for the question you asked. Democratic mechanisms are incredibly difficult to sustain in such environments of collapse and external and internal threats. If there's practically no significant working class by 1922, how do you expect them to practice working-class democracy? If there are threats from within and without, including the greatest threat to humanity history has ever known, how do you expect them to go to the ballot box with such regularity? Isolated and under siege, the revolution had to be made to withstand these pressures in order to survive: the reduction of democracy was part of this.

Don't be too quick to believe this just because it's been repeated over and over. Please read the link on the left hand side "Democracy and Cuba"

http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html (http://members.allstream.net/%7Edchris/CubaFAQ.html)

Note: it cites its claims with reliable sources.

Then imperialism today isn't "hegemony", in which case it's a useless term.

It was never that clear-cut. Do you think the workers of 1848 thought of themselves completely as workers? The working-class uprising in Hungary of that year was fueled mostly by cries of nationalism. A lot of the insurrectionary workers of Paris in 1871 just hated Napoleon III more than anything else. Class consciousness has never been concrete and unchanging and it never will be, it's something that comes to the fore when class conflict is pointed.

And they might not unite under "one class banner", but they never did. They went to the red flag because they saw the Bolsheviks promoting their interests and fighting the capitalists. Again, stop wrongly reducing Marxism to such ridiculous conclusions, it's just misrepresentation at its worst.

Building socialism in one country doesn't mean you neglect revolution elsewhere. Stalin, while much criticized for not funding revolutions, did a GREAT deal to defend the Spanish Republic against Franco. He was even the guy who got the Soviet Union to invade Poland during the Civil War, in the hopes of spreading Bolshevism to central Europe. I don't even support him, but you can't ignore these contributions.

There were plenty of counterrevolutionary elements throughout Soviet society. They were defeated to a large extent, but they continued to exist and eventually reared their heads in the 80's. However, just because those elements were defeated doesn't mean you can undo the effects of the previous years. The Soviet state was fundamentally shaped by those tumultuous years of 1922-1945, and you can't just turn back the clock after it's all over.

It's like expecting Rome to tear down their walls just because they beat the Gauls. The walls remain, for better or worse.

Every revolution consists of one class taking power from a former ruling class and enforcing its rule. The working-class revolution is no different, because this is how revolutions operate. Revolution doesn't disperse power, it puts it into new hands.

That's why working-class revolutions which utilized state power have succeeded.

Yes, that's true, but it's also true that the state was still progressive and working in the interests of that worker. Just see what happened when the Soviet Union fell and you know exactly what that means.

Further, if you review the link I posted, you'll see that Cuba DOES operate on fully democratic grounds.

Manic Expression, I don't mean to sound offensive, but I've decided not to continue this debate. The rationale for this is that I feel I need to get certain aspects of Marxism into perspective before I can debate these smaller issues. I appreciate your responses and your civility, and I would be more than greatful should you decide to help me answer these issues in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/my-problems-practical-t101944/index.html?p=1362646#post1362646).

Thanks again.

BobKKKindle$

17th February 2009, 19:18

Is the proletariat always the only class able to construct socialism? In this day in age, they have more to lose than their chainsPut simply, socialism can only come into being through a movement which is rooted in the working class, and so the working class is ultimately the only class capable of constructing socialism. This does not, however, mean that the proletariat is capable of governing on its own without enlisting the support of other classes in every country, or that the proletariat is the only class with a material interest in establishing socialism. On a basic level, the proletariat is now the largest class in the world, as more than half of the world's total population lives in an urban area, and the overwhelming majority of people who are part of this category survive by selling their labour power as a commodity - in other words, they are proletarians. Industrialization means that the proletariat is becoming larger with each passing day, and the peasantry is becoming smaller and therefore less significant as a revolutionary force. The numerical balance of forces means that the proletariat has an immediate advantage over other classes. This is true even though there are other classes which encounter worse and more uncertain economic conditions, such as the lumpenproletariat, and to some extent the peasantry. In addition to the numerical aspect, the proletariat also occupies a distinct position in a modern capitalist economy. The members of the proletariat are concentrated together in large units of production and all share the same relationship to the means of production, and this means that workers have no choice but to set aside their differences and fight alongside each other in order to extract gains from the capitalist system and enhance their bargaining position inside the workplace. This is important, because it fosters a spirit of solidarity that prepares the working class for its revolutionary task, and it also establishes a basis for the collective ownership and control of the productive forces once a revolution has taken place. In contrast, the peasantry (the only other class with the numerical strength to enforce its class interests through revolution) is spread over a large area, and lacks a unified set of class interests, given that not all peasants have the same relationship to the land - some peasants may own a small amount of land but derive most of their income from working for other peasants, whereas other peasants may work on their own land but also hire other peasants to increase output, and so on. These factors combined mean that only the proletariat can construct socialism.

I never said the state represents the whole of society, I'm saying it represents various interest groups in society, and it would be stupid and simplistic to say "this state is a bourgeois state".The idea of a bourgeois state does not mean that every person who is part of the state belongs to the bourgeoisie, or consciously seeks to advance the class interests of the bourgeoisie - this would be simplistic. It does not even mean that all of the state's decisions and policies reflect the immediate interests of the ruling class. It does mean, however, that the state is forced to operate in the context of an economy based on private ownership and commodity production (i.e. a capitalist economy) and this is what forces the state to act in the long-term interests of the bourgeoisie, and do whatever it can to stabilize the capitalist system. To elaborate, the government needs to find a way of raising taxation in order to fund its expenditure, and also make sure that the economy remains stable to retain popular support, and, so, given that the bourgeoisie controls the means of production, and can essentially destroy the economy by withdrawing investment at short notice, this puts pressure on the state to adjust its policies to conform to the class interests of the bourgeoisie. This is but one factor - the role of campaign donations in shaping the policies of political parties is also important. The notion of a bourgeois state means, from a revolutionary point of view, that the proletariat cannot come to power simply by electing a particular party to government or changing the composition of parliament - instead, the proletariat must acknowledge that the state in its current form is not suited to the task of building a socialist society and expropriating the means of production, and must govern through its own state, based on mass participation in politics.

I'll deal with your other points in due course. But - it's good that you're asking these questions.

SocialismOrBarbarism

18th February 2009, 05:08

You have yet to prove the existence of "de facto" private property.

You have yet to prove the existence of a "de facto" capitalist class.

You have yet to prove the existence of "de facto" commodity production

I'm not going to waste my time pointing out how your understandings of the DOTP or Socialism are completely flawed, but I can easily prove the existence of commodity production and private property:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/ch03.htm

Unless you don't trust Stalin. His understanding of socialism was crap too.

manic expression

18th February 2009, 05:22

I'm not going to waste my time pointing out how your understandings of the DOTP or Socialism are completely flawed, but I can easily prove the existence of commodity production and private property:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/ch03.htm

Unless you don't trust Stalin. His understanding of socialism was crap too.

What Stalin is saying here is that while commodity production did exist in some cases, it certainly did not take the form of capitalist commodity production. That does not undermine my basic point whatsoever. So this mostly about semantics; if I were to concede that position due to the citation you used, it would actually support my wider conclusions.

Next, Mandel summed up the situation in this way:

State ownership of all important industrial, transportation and financial enterprises (i.e. of the means of production and circulation), combined with legal (constitutional) suppression of the right to their private appropriation, centralized economic planning and state monopoly of foreign trade, imply the absence of generalized commodity production and the rule of the law of value in the USSR. This means that the economy is no longer capitalist. There is neither a market for large means of production nor for manpower, and labor-power has ceased to be a commodity.

He continues:

So long as only partial commodity production survives, money does not and cannot have the same functions as under capitalism or even under petty commodity production; it cannot become large-scale capital, and only in marginal cases (“black market production”) does it become a means of direct exploitation of labor-power.

This needs to be accounted for.

Lynx

18th February 2009, 15:52

So long as only partial commodity production survives, money does not and cannot have the same functions as under capitalism or even under petty commodity production; it cannot become large-scale capital, and only in marginal cases (“black market production”) does it become a means of direct exploitation of labor-power.

To clarify, how were wages and prices determined in the Soviet Union?
(I wish to compare your answers with Cottrell & Cockshott's analysis)

manic expression

18th February 2009, 17:09

To clarify, how were wages and prices determined in the Soviet Union?
(I wish to compare your answers with Cottrell & Cockshott's analysis)

Good question. I think this is more an issue of what the Soviet Union was not, so I'll frame my answer in that context. This is something I had written before on much the same subject, and I think it touches on your question.

This brings up the point of commodity production and its relation to labor, which is key to understanding the nature of wages. The point is that while wages exist, their position, their purpose and their consequences are entirely different. As Mandel pointed out, so-called "partial commodity production" had not the potential to exploit workers. Marx saw the commodity as the "cell" of bourgeois society, it drives everything, centers everything upon itself. In the USSR, the economy was centrally planned by people who owned no property; in this case, how are we to believe commodity production was generalized, and therefore the "cell" of society? The commodity production formula put forth by Marx in Capital are nowhere to be found in the USSR.

From Capital:

"First stage: The capitalist appears as a buyer on the commodity- and the labour-market; his money is transformed into commodities, or it goes through the circulation act M — C. Second Stage: Productive consumption of the purchased commodities by the capitalist. He acts as a capitalist producer of commodities; his capital passes through the process of production. The result is a commodity of more value than that of the elements entering into its production.
Third Stage: The capitalist returns to the market as a seller; his commodities are turned into money; or they pass through the circulation act C — M."

This was simply nonexistent in the Soviet Union. Further, as Mandel put it briefly:

There is neither a market for large means of production nor for manpower, and labor-power has ceased to be a commodity.

Due to this, wage labor, as it exists in capitalist society, had no basis with which to exist in the Soviet Union.

In terms of trade with other nations, there certainly was that. However, this does not imply capitalism. First, foreign trade predates capitalism by a long time, so the two are not necessarily intertwined. Second, the USSR's foreign trade was not based on any domestic market or the competition of private firms as in capitalism, but on central planning and a state monopoly of trade. Now, some would say that this state monopoly then indicates capitalism, because the bureaucracy is only profiting from trade collectively. This is incorrect, however, because the bureaucrats themselves had no direct means of profiting from this, not even as a collective unit. Again, as private property had been abolished since the early days of the October Revolution, no one could make capitalist profit from either production or trade, and historically no one did.

Lastly, on the issue of profit, there is a stark difference in how bureaucrats "profit" and how capitalists profit. Bureaucrats make their living not through the profit of private firms, and they do not extract surplus capital for their own benefit. They do, however, gain benefits from their government income. In many cases, they abuse their position to stretch this further. However, at no point do they reap the profit of labor through direct exploitation. After all, they can't, for as we know, labor isn't chained to capital or commodity production in the Soviet system. So really, to say that bureaucrats "profit" just like capitalists do is nonsense, their privileges come SOLELY through their offices in the state. If they were capitalist, would we not have seen a distinct influx in their income after Cuba or Vietnam aligned with the Soviet Union? There was no such correlation, at all, and so we can safely discard the mindless claim that Soviet bureaucrats made some sort of capitalist profit.

Lynx

19th February 2009, 05:55

The commodity production formula put forth by Marx in Capital are nowhere to be found in the USSR.
Agreed. M-C-M production was absent or severely restricted.

This was simply nonexistent in the Soviet Union. Further, as Mandel put it briefly:

There is neither a market for large means of production nor for manpower, and labor-power has ceased to be a commodity.

Due to this, wage labor, as it exists in capitalist society, had no basis with which to exist in the Soviet Union.
Nevertheless workers were paid in rubles. This leads to the following questions:
How were workers wages determined?
To what degree were wages differential?
How were prices determined?

Following are some excerpts from Cottrell/Cockshott's book which may be of some background help (emphasis mine):

Comparison with historically existing socialism

In closing this chapter it may be useful to compare the Marxian model with what was achieved in the socialist countries. To our knowledge the only instance of Marxian principles of distribution being applied in these countries was on the People’s Communes in China during the 1960s and 1970s. There, goods were allocated according to a work-point system. The number of hours of work that members put in during the year was recorded and their share of the harvest was based on this. It may be that other socialist countries applied this principle too, but we do not know of it.

In general, the socialist economies retained money. They issued notes and coin which went into general circulation. This money was used in five distinct forms of circulation:
(1) Exchanges between socialist state enterprises. The basis of this was the relative operational and managerial independence of state enterprises.
(2) Exchanges between the collective farm sector and the state.
(3) Exchanges between collective farms and urban workers at markets for agricultural produce.
(4) Sale of products by family farms to urban workers, the basis for which was the continuation of family sideline production.
(5) Exchanges between state retailing agencies and the employees of state enterprises.

It was often argued that in the first case money was not really functioning as money, since no transfers of ownership were involved. If enterprise A delivered goods to enterprise B, enterprise B might pay for them, but there was no real change of ownership since both were owned by the state.5 There was some truth in this, since most of the deliveries were in accordance with a plan, but the rationalization was only partially true. If there were no real change in ownership, why should there be even a nominal exchange of money?

[...]

The final exchange system-the market for consumer goods-is the crucial one. It is here that fundamental class contradictions acted to prevent the completion of the Marxian socialist program. For the Marxian view of socialism was radically egalitarian. There was to be no source of income other than labour, and all labour was to be treated as equal. Advancing to this point would have required the elimination of the perks and differentials enjoyed by the bureaucracy. The Marxian program was incompatible with the perpetuation of any elite stratum. Marx applauded the principle employed by the Paris Commune, that public officials should get no more than average workers’ wages. In more recent years Mao and the Left in China opposed differentials and pointed out that China still had far to go to achieve a socialist distribution system; they argued that the 8 grade wage system remained an obstacle to socialism.

China was exceptional in that the question of abolishing the bourgeois system of labour differentials became a burning political issue. It was one of the key issues in the Cultural Revolution. With the defeat of the left there and the hegemony of Deng’s line, further advance towards realising the Marxist program became impossible. In most of the other socialist countries the question of moving to payment on the basis of labour was never even on the agenda.

How wages, prices and money worked in the USSR is what I wish to learn more about. Did the failure to use labour-time calculations contribute to the eventual economic stagnation of the USSR?

Die Neue Zeit

20th February 2009, 14:17

Agreed. M-C-M production was absent or severely restricted.

Comrade, you may wish to speak with Comrade sanpal. The monetary system in the USSR, according to him, was based on Duhring's "socialitarianism" (hence the Anti-Duhring) and was fleshed out theoretically in Stalin's Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR mentioned above (as you know, Bordiga commented on this in his Dialogue with Stalin).

The 7 basic forms of commodity trade can be summarised as follows:

1) M-C (an act of purchase: a sum of money purchases a commodity)
2) C-M (an act of sale: a commodity is sold for money)
3) M-M' (a sum of money is lent out at interest to obtain more money, or, one currency or financial claim is traded for another)
4) C-C' (countertrade, in which a commodity trades directly for a different commodity, with money possibly being used as an accounting referent, for example, food for oil, or weapons for diamonds)
5) C-M-C' (a commodity is sold for money, which buys another, different commodity with an equal or higher value)
6) M-C-M' (money is used to buy a commodity which is resold to obtain a larger sum of money)
7) M-C...P...-C'-M' (money buys means of production and labour power used in production to create a new commodity, which is sold for more money than the original outlay).

And my questions are these: to what extent does electronic labour credit eliminate commodity trade (I'm already sure about the elimination of #3, 5, 6, and 7), and to what extent does it retain such?

However, M-M' (3) still existed because people were saving money and because the state banks charged interest on state enterprises and probably also in foreign trade. C-M-C' (5) also existed, not least of which due to people selling their labour-power for money (even if there was no "labour market"). Given the details in the quote above, the basic form of M-C-M' (6) may also have existed; state enterprises used money to buy raw materials and then resell them (after they've become finished products due to manufacturing labour) to obtain a larger sum of money.

JimmyJazz

21st February 2009, 00:40

I don't think that many of us LVers propose that everything should be based upon labour credits. Generally we propose that stuff like food, automobiles, energy, cooking appliances, etc, should be free until a certain amount, when they become luxuries themselves. For luxuries (stuff like special cameras and other stuff necessary to seriously pursue hobbies, 3 cars, 10 pounds of food per day, etc), one must take part in production, which would appear to be what Trotkinkap is suggesting here. If one doesn't contribute even though they can, then I don't really have any problem with them having only their basic needs met. Of course, there wouldn't need to be any bureaucratic organization to monitor this kind of thing; we would already be keeping statistics under socialism for production in general. As for the rest, ML's question seemed to be intended to avoid a repeat of the generic LV/FA debate, so I'm not entirely sure that it would be appropriate to start up an LV/FA debate treading old paths over and over again in this thread.

This is actually very close to my view - to each according to his needs, and for everything beyond that, to each according to his labor. I consider myself mainly a socialist; but it would be a bit absurd, for instance, for me to be a socialist who is less "communist" than liberals--who are already in favor of universal healthcare.

Anyway, what is the LV/FA debate and can you provide some links?

First regarding the material conditions for communism by which I mean the trechnological capacity to ptroduce anough to satisfy people's reasonable needs, even Engels back in the late 19th century was speculating , following the second industrial revolution, that this capacity had just about been achieved by then. The timing might have been slightly out but clearly by the early 20th century that capacity had been realised. This does not mean that today all our reasonable needs are being met. Of course not. The point is that there is no reason why our reasonable needs cannot be met other than capitalism itself which is responsive only to effective market demand and not human needs and moreover increasingly squanders human and material resources on socially wasteful activities that do not satisfy human needs in any meaningful sense.

Why are some people so incapable of seeing that the majority of people don't want the economic growth historically associated with capitalism to come to an end? That people are not concerned simply with their "needs", but that they also want ipods, and hundred million dollar blockbuster movies getting produced, and fashionable new clothes that come out each season?

If you keep denying that this is what most people want, expect to get exactly nowhere with the working class. People like to consume. What you are saying now is not that society should democratically decide what to do with the surplus product--that which it produces over and beyond what it consumes--but that there shouldn't be a surplus product. That's silly and out of touch with the other humans around you. People want more than just what it takes to survive, and they are willing to work to produce it.

Also, I'm unclear as to who in your society will enforce things like workers' control and community ownership of the MoP. I can only assume you think that communism will be so incredibly great that not one person in the whole society will have a desire to start buying and trading and producing commodities for sale to others. Not even TomK. This is what makes your ideas utopian.

The fact of the matter--and realization of this fact is precisely why I ceased to be an anarchist, after starting out as one--is that if you wish to enforce a certain conception of property rights across an entire society, you need to have something like a state in order to do this. Without a state, you cannot even predict, much less control, what will happen with the economy or how production will be carried out. Anarcho-communists say that statelessness will lead to communism; Murray Rothbard says that "Capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism." Who's to say which one is right? Neither is: both are just making extreme predictions. Neither ancoms nor ancaps advocate a state to actually enforce what they would like to see WRT property rights, and the truth of what will happen inevitably lies somewhere between their two extreme predictions. (Although, as far as predictions go, I tend to think Rothbard's is much more accurate.)

The anarchists are right that the state is the entity that enforces bourgeois property rights. But who will enforce cooperative property rights? Who will prevent wage-labor from taking root again? Someone has to. After all, captialism did not always exist, but at one point it started to. Why wouldn't it start again? Who or what will stop it?

In December of 2005, writer "Mercedes" in the WSM forum said to me, "Rewarding people hourly is the absolutely only way you can compel someone to work? Are you Pavlov's dog?" I replied, "Woof!"

I've had communists tell me that I lack imagination since I am unable to imagine how an "to each according to this ability [including wants]" society could work. But it quickly became evident that they lack such imagination as well--because they could not give me one compelling reason why a person would work if s/he is not compensated according to labor, if not by money wages, then at least with some form of increased barter-power. It usually came down to them saying "well I would still work" and me saying "well I sure as hell wouldn't". But I'm afraid that the existence of any number of selfish bastards like myself really does ruin the "pure" communist idea. :( Sorry guys.

Of course, there is always the suggestion that abolishing the division of labor will allow everyone to do what they genuinely enjoy. But this, first of all, ignores the problem that people enjoy economic growth, especially in the area of entertainment items/products/art for consumption. The extensive division of labor which capitalism introduces is precisely the revolutionary thing that produces the explosive economic growth we've seen in the last 250 years or so. Abolish DoL, abolish the modern standard of living.

And then there is the fact that no one will ever inherently enjoy collecting garbage, etc. The reward for engaging in such activities has to be external to the task itself.

Trust me, I don't enjoy being Mr. Cynical Leftist. I'd love for pure communism to work--of course! As would most people I think, liberals included. I mean, doesn't the Political Compass test--a test of mainstream political opinion--include a question asking "Do you think 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs' is a fundamentally good idea?". The problem with pure small-c communism for me, as for most people in society, is not with desirability but workability. I'd love to be proven wrong. I just don't think I will be.

robbo203

21st February 2009, 01:17

They weren't exploiting the proletariat during the USSR because there was no private property..

As explained state property is a form of private or sectional owenrship. A nationalised entity in the West no more belongs to "the people" than it did in the state capitalist USSR. If it did not belong to the people who did it belong to? Those who controlled the state in the USSR were the de facto owners of the means of production insofar as these were under state ownership

The bourgeoisie can exist without being in power. Part of this means that the bourgeoisie can exist WHILE being deprived of the means with which to exploit the proletariat.
..

A capitalist that is unable to exploit the workers by definition is no longer a capitalist. Capitalists and pre-capitalist ruling class elements can certainly coexist but that does not at all apply to the situation in respect of capitalists and workers and the necessarily exploitative reciprocal relationship that obtains between them. It is impossible to conceive that the workers as a class conscious force (which the notion of the DOTP implies) could have political power and permit the capitalists to continue to exploiting them which they would necessarily be doing if they continued to function as capitalists. Of course, I suppose it is possible for workers who were not class conscious to come to power and continue with capitalism and hence enebale the capitalist class to continue exploting workers. You might even argue that the early labour governments fell under this category comprised overwhelmingly of working class MPs. But this is not what we are talking about is it

I've already explained this one, kid. Try reading what I've written.

To Marx, the communists have no interests separate from the proletariat. Therefore, a dictatorship of the proletariat would inherently entail a dictatorship of the party.

Go read the Manifesto, you have no idea what Marxism is. ..

If the interests of communists are not separate from the proletariat, then the party of the communists would be a democratic one controlled from the bottom. The exact opposite of this was all too evident in the state capitalist USSR. What you had there was a ruling class whose interests were all too clearly separate from and opposed to the interests of the workers and why there was massive inequality in the USSR. That is why dictatorial force had to be exercised over the proletariat. You are surely not suggesting are you that the Soviet Union was a democratic society?

As has been explained already, class conflict is wholly material and thus central to the material preconditions of communism.

However, your rejection of class conflict is just another reason why you're not a Marxist...

My rejection of class conflict? Pray, do tell me - when did I suggest this? My point was specifically that by the material preconditions of communism is meant simply the technological capacity to support communism. This is clearly uinderstood by almost everyone and I am puzzled at your reluctance to accept this elementary fact

Right, because in the last thread, you suddenly disappeared as soon as I started posting these passages.

Let it be known that you're still avoiding the subject....

My personal circumstances means that I generally only have access to the internet on weekends. Where I live is fairly remote and lacking in such rudimentary features of civilisation as internet access . So you will just have to wait with bated breath in the meanwhile

You have yet to prove the existence of "de facto" private property.

You have yet to prove the existence of a "de facto" capitalist class.

You have yet to prove the existence of "de facto" commodity production

You have yet to make an argument.....

All the arguments proving the existence of de facto private property, a de facto capitalist class and de facto commodity production in the state capitalist USSR have been adequately aired. I am still wating for anything like a remotely plausible counter argument

What market? The world market? The state had a monopoly on international trade, and no bureaucrats profited directly from these transactions. The domestic market? It was relegated to illegal and marginal activities. You have nothing......

Sigh. Do I really need to restate the obvious yet again. How do you think workers acquired the goods and services they needed in order to live? They bought them. What does "buying them" entail? It entials the existence of a market. That is what a market means. Did you not realise this? What you are talking about is the black market which operates in the West as well by the way. But I am talking about the official market. The fact that it is regulated does not make it any the less a market. THe market relationship applied in the case of the state capitalist USSR not just to the domestic situation but internationally too as an important earner of foreign currency amongst other things

What "market mechanisms" are you talking about? These things were eradicated by the 30's and they didn't come back until Gorbachev and Yeltsin.

You keep babbling unsupported and nonsensical claims. As an anti-Marxist is wont to do.......

Read Vaclav Holesovosky Economic Systsm: Analysis and Comparison (McGraw-Hill 1977) who explains very clearly how so called central planning did not do away with exchanges between state enterprises and how means of production were transfreed between these enterprises on a buying and selling bases. That might make for uncomfortable reading for you but these are facts as opposed to your pure and simple ideologising not to say wishful thinking

Capitalists can exist without being in power. After having been deprived of the means to control societies, ruling classes continue to exist. .......

And there I was thinking that a ruling class in order to rule has to have in its poissession the means to control society

You keep running away from this simple fact in favor of your baseless garbage about secret capitalists in positions which were un-capitalist. Bureaucrats didn't own property, they didn't employ workers, they owned no stocks and no bonds........

They dont need to legally or individually hold stocks or bonds to constitute a capitalist class. They dont need to have individual legal entitlemt to property either. What counts is the de facto situation and that alone - all the rest is historically contingent. The Soviet nomenklatura as a tiny class exercised de facto ownership of the means of production via their absolute control of the state. In fact , you cannot separate ownership and ultimate control in that respect. The one is the expression of the other. Once you accept that a tiny class exercised overwhelming power and made all the important decisions relating to the means of production in the USSR then the whole argument against the marxist analysis of the USSR as a state capitalist system crumbles completely

BobKKKindle$

21st February 2009, 01:31

They bought them. What does "buying them" entail? It entials the existence of a market. That is what a market means

Actually, a market is more complex than this. A market involves the ability of those who are selling goods to set the price at which they are sold, free from the control of any institution such as the state, and to increase or reduce the level of output in order to cope with changes in demand. A market can also be taken to mean the existence of multiple producers who compete with each other in order to capture a larger share of the consumers, although this aspect of the definition is more controversial. In the Soviet Union, both output and price were controlled by the central government, and were set in accordance with the national plan, in order to achieve the government's aims. The question of whether a market exists is not, in itself, relevant to the question of whether a given economy is capitalist or not, because the defining feature of capitalism is the circulation and accumulation of capital.

manic expression

21st February 2009, 02:08

As explained state property is a form of private or sectional owenrship. A nationalised entity in the West no more belongs to "the people" than it did in the state capitalist USSR. If it did not belong to the people who did it belong to? Those who controlled the state in the USSR were the de facto owners of the means of production insofar as these were under state ownership

What makes "state property" in "the West" capitalist, precisely? Is it because it's owned by the state?

No, it's because it's nationalized by the bourgeoisie, who privately own the means of production. The bourgeoisie nationalizes some industries and some entities depending on the country, but they do not nationalize all of them; why? The bourgeoisie depends on private ownership. That's Marxism.

A capitalist that is unable to exploit the workers by definition is no longer a capitalist.

If a capitalist retires with a fat bonus, is s/he no longer a capitalist? Yes, s/he is, even though she is no longer directly exploiting workers. If a capitalist loses his/her position within his/her company, is s/he still a capitalist? Yes, s/he is.

If a capitalist finds themselves out of power, they do not lose their class character. They still promote their interests as capitalists, they seek the reestablishment of capitalism. Class conflict does not disappear when capitalist relations are overturned (you might think that if you're an anarchist, which you are).

Capitalists and pre-capitalist ruling class elements can certainly coexist but that does not at all apply to the situation in respect of capitalists and workers and the necessarily exploitative reciprocal relationship that obtains between them.

Again, you have no support for this claim, you're just making things up as you go along, which just further demonstrates your anti-Marxist ideology.

Once more, the French nobility were deprived the means with which to exploit the Third Estate, yet they continued to exist and eventually reconquered their position. Your position would lead us to believe this is impossible, except history proves you wrong.

Oh, and have fun ignoring the issue as you've done for the last few posts.

It is impossible to conceive that the workers as a class conscious force (which the notion of the DOTP implies) could have political power and permit the capitalists to continue to exploiting them which they would necessarily be doing if they continued to function as capitalists. Of course, I suppose it is possible for workers who were not class conscious to come to power and continue with capitalism and hence enebale the capitalist class to continue exploting workers. You might even argue that the early labour governments fell under this category comprised overwhelmingly of working class MPs. But this is not what we are talking about is it

Irrelevant drivel based on an unproven assumption. As usual.

If the interests of communists are not separate from the proletariat, then the party of the communists would be a democratic one controlled from the bottom. The exact opposite of this was all too evident in the state capitalist USSR. What you had there was a ruling class whose interests were all too clearly separate from and opposed to the interests of the workers and why there was massive inequality in the USSR. That is why dictatorial force had to be exercised over the proletariat. You are surely not suggesting are you that the Soviet Union was a democratic society?

Power does not come from the "top" or "bottom" in any state, it comes from the class which has conquered political authority. Your premise is essentially an anarchist one. Nevertheless, the character of a state is measured first and foremost by the social relations which it enshrines in law and defends with force. The Soviet system saw collectivized property, the abolition of private property and the capitalist mode of production. This means that, scientifically, the Soviet Union was socialist and not capitalist.

The bottom line is that capitalists can't function without private property or commodity production, and neither of these were prominent in the Soviet Union. For all your bluster, you haven't given a shred of evidence to prove your points.

My rejection of class conflict? Pray, do tell me - when did I suggest this? My point was specifically that by the material preconditions of communism is meant simply the technological capacity to support communism. This is clearly uinderstood by almost everyone and I am puzzled at your reluctance to accept this elementary fact

You suggested it by saying that the "material conditions" necessary for communism are technology and not class conflict. You stated that in this very moment, we possess the material conditions necessary for communism, which is absolutely ridiculous to anyone who knows the first thing about Marxism. Evidently, you're not one of them.

My personal circumstances means that I generally only have access to the internet on weekends. Where I live is fairly remote and lacking in such rudimentary features of civilisation as internet access . So you will just have to wait with bated breath in the meanwhile

As far as I know, you still haven't commented on that thread.

More importantly, you haven't been able to prove your assertions once. Not then, not now. All you have is a chain of unsupported ranting.

Anyway, I'm not one to criticize someone for not immediately responding to me, but the fact is that your arguments were thoroughly refuted in the last thread, and we're seeing that again now.

All the arguments proving the existence of de facto private property, a de facto capitalist class and de facto commodity production in the state capitalist USSR have been adequately aired. I am still wating for anything like a remotely plausible counter argument

If you don't make an argument, don't expect a counterargument, for there is nothing to counter.

Sigh. Do I really need to restate the obvious yet again. How do you think workers acquired the goods and services they needed in order to live? They bought them. What does "buying them" entail? It entials the existence of a market. That is what a market means. Did you not realise this? What you are talking about is the black market which operates in the West as well by the way. But I am talking about the official market. The fact that it is regulated does not make it any the less a market. THe market relationship applied in the case of the state capitalist USSR not just to the domestic situation but internationally too as an important earner of foreign currency amongst other things

More idiocy. Please review my response to Lynx, it covers why the USSR didn't operate in any way like a capitalist economy. Workers in the Soviet Union were payed with wages and they used these wages to buy stuff. It was never my position that they didn't. What I DID argue, however, is that the wage system existed for completely different purposes and served completely different interests. If you'd be so kind to actually read my posts (specifically the one I noted earlier), perhaps you'd be able to understand this.

A capitalist market presupposes private ownership. If you can't prove the latter, you can't prove the former. You haven't proven either.

Read Vaclav Holesovosky Economic Systsm: Analysis and Comparison (McGraw-Hill 1977) who explains very clearly how so called central planning did not do away with exchanges between state enterprises and how means of production were transfreed between these enterprises on a buying and selling bases. That might make for uncomfortable reading for you but these are facts as opposed to your pure and simple ideologising not to say wishful thinking

Sure, I'll just run to my local bookstore and clear out my schedule for the next week and read it. Tell you what, if I get the chance to read it, I will, but I assure you that I probably won't because I don't get to read much of anything that's not assigned for class.

As to your summary, you're not saying anything new (or correct, incidentally). The fact that they were state enterprises meant that no one was making any capitalist profit. If you're not directly employing workers in order to create capital, you're not a capitalist. If you're not using ownership of private property (stuff that you actually own) to make profit, you're not a capitalist. It's as easy as that.

This is made all the more ridiculous when I compare this with your previous claims:

A capitalist that is unable to exploit the workers by definition is no longer a capitalist.

You're arguing that these so-called "capitalists" held positions which "by definition" made them "unable to exploit the workers". Contradiction at its finest.

And there I was thinking that a ruling class in order to rule has to have in its poissession the means to control society

This is typical of simple-minded radicals. What you're talking about doesn't decisively determine whether a society is capitalist or socialist. Marx wrote about this in length in 18 Brumaire, specifically that the capitalist class had been politically defeated while capitalism remained in existence. Napoleon II did overwhelm the bourgeoisie politically through his coup, but did he presided over distinctly capitalist social relations. Thus, capitalism existed while the capitalist class was disempowered.

So, again, you're disagreeing with Marx.

They dont need to legally or individually hold stocks or bonds to constitute a capitalist class. They dont need to have individual legal entitlemt to property either.

Yes, they certainly do. All ruling classes defend their privileges through law and ownership. The capitalist class enshrines private property in all its most sacred documents; the feudal rulers enforced divine right and feudal hierarchy through the sword; the patricians of antiquity were legally defined as separate from the rest of society. In the same way, the Soviet Union banned all private property in theory and in practice.

Now let's all get ready for even more unsubstantiated assertions from an anarchist in self-denial....

What counts is the de facto situation and that alone - all the rest is historically contingent. The Soviet nomenklatura as a tiny class exercised de facto ownership of the means of production via their absolute control of the state. In fact , you cannot separate ownership and ultimate control in that respect. The one is the expression of the other. Once you accept that a tiny class exercised overwhelming power and made all the important decisions relating to the means of production in the USSR then the whole argument against the marxist analysis of the USSR as a state capitalist system crumbles completely

Like I said...

You still have yet to prove "de facto" private property. You still have yet to prove "de facto" commodity production. You still have yet to prove "de facto" capitalism. Sorry.

Further, you keep attempting to equate state power with ownership, which is just silly. Ownership, at least in the capitalist sense, revolves around making profit from the buying and selling of labor in order to produce capital. Soviet bureaucrats did not do this.

Just as importantly, you keep equating decision making with capitalism, which is just stupid. Even if you characterize the Soviet bureaucracy as having all the power, you need to account for the fact that their very existence made impossible capitalist relations. Labor was not being exploited, commodity production had been marginalized. If your position was true, then Louis XIV, Diocletian, Suleyman the Magnificent, Alexander the Great and others who "exercised overwhelming power" would be capitalist! Surely, this would be an insipid claim, considering none of them promoted the interests of capitalists. That's essentially the foolish idea you're trying to convince us of: the bureaucrats were capitalist because they had power.

Die Neue Zeit

21st February 2009, 02:39

This is actually very close to my view - to each according to his needs, and for everything beyond that, to each according to his labor. I consider myself mainly a socialist; but it would be a bit absurd, for instance, for me to be a socialist who is less "communist" than liberals--who are already in favor of universal healthcare.

The Soviet slogan "To each according to his work" would have been better had it been "To each his want according to his work."

Of course, there is always the suggestion that abolishing the division of labor will allow everyone to do what they genuinely enjoy. But this, first of all, ignores the problem that people enjoy economic growth, especially in the area of entertainment items/products/art for consumption. The extensive division of labor which capitalism introduces is precisely the revolutionary thing that produces the explosive economic growth we've seen in the last 250 years or so. Abolish DoV, abolish the modern standard of living.

As elaborated upon by one Pat Devine, Marx was actually referring to "social" divisions of labour and not the "functional" divisions of labour that you've mentioned.

And then there is the fact that no one will ever inherently enjoy collecting garbage, etc. The reward for engaging in such activities has to be external to the task itself.

Job rotation of some sort is key towards ending the social division of labour. The Soviets had subbotniks (volunteer days) for collecting garbage. ;)

revolution inaction

21st February 2009, 11:26

Also, I'm unclear as to who in your society will enforce things like workers' control and community ownership of the MoP. I can only assume you think that communism will be so incredibly great that not one person in the whole society will have a desire to start buying and trading and producing commodities for sale to others. Not even TomK. This is what makes your ideas utopian.

everyone would enforce it, it would take a lot less enforcing than private property does. How could some one start buying and selling if there is no money, how could they own the means of production if no one respects that ownership.

captialism did not always exist, but at one point it started to. Why wouldn't it start again? Who or what will stop it?

why capitalism, why not feudalism or slave based economics? what will stop them coming back?

I've had communists tell me that I lack imagination since I am unable to imagine how an "to each according to this ability [including wants]" society could work. But it quickly became evident that they lack such imagination as well--because they could not give me one compelling reason why a person would work if s/he is not compensated according to labor, if not by money wages, then at least with some form of increased barter-power. It usually came down to them saying "well I would still work" and me saying "well I sure as hell wouldn't". But I'm afraid that the existence of any number of selfish bastards like myself really does ruin the "pure" communist idea. :( Sorry guys.

so your saying if the deal was "you work and you can take what you want from the stores, you don't and you cant" you wouldn't work?

Of course, there is always the suggestion that abolishing the division of labor will allow everyone to do what they genuinely enjoy. But this, first of all, ignores the problem that people enjoy economic growth, especially in the area of entertainment items/products/art for consumption. The extensive division of labor which capitalism introduces is precisely the revolutionary thing that produces the explosive economic growth we've seen in the last 250 years or so. Abolish DoV, abolish the modern standard of living.

i don't really see how a high degree of division of labour is needed to maintain standers of living?

And then there is the fact that no one will ever inherently enjoy collecting garbage, etc. The reward for engaging in such activities has to be external to the task itself.

i agree that it is not an enjoyable job, that is why i think it should be rotated as far as possible.

Trust me, I don't enjoy being Mr. Cynical Leftist. I'd love for pure communism to work--of course! As would most people I think, liberals included. I mean, doesn't the Political Compass test--a test of mainstream political opinion--include a question asking "Do you think 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs' is a fundamentally good idea?". The problem with pure small-c communism for me, as for most people in society, is not with desirability but workability. I'd love to be proven wrong. I just don't think I will be.

nothing you've said actually has anything to do with the practicality of communism, and several of your arguments like the question about what would stop a return to capitalism apply more strongly to any kind of socialism which retains money or equivalent.

edit: noticed Jacob Richter deals with some of this too

ZeroNowhere

21st February 2009, 12:04

so your saying if the deal was "you work and you can take what you want from the stores, you don't and you cant" you wouldn't work?

I think he's using the term 'communism' to refer to 'free access and voluntary labour', for some reason.

mikelepore

21st February 2009, 13:29

I don't regard "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" as a serious socialist proposal.

The expression came about because the utopian socialists a generation before Marx and Engels had a custom of trying to outdo the claims made for religion. For example, suppose that some Christian missionary were to quote the Bible passage, "Then this city will bring me renown, joy, praise and honor before all nations on earth that hear of all the good things I do for it; and they will be in awe and will tremble at the abundant prosperity and peace I provide for it." (Jerimiah 33:9) Then the utopian socialist, not content to let religion score a point by promising peace and prosperity, would probably feel compelled to give the rebuttal that the new socialist idea for communal living arrangements would be the true way to achieve peace and prosperity.

That's what was going on. The early socialist movement played a game of oneupmanship with religion. If anyone claimed an advantage for religion, it was felt to be mandatory to respond that socialism can offer the same advantage and more.

This is how the phrase "... to each according to his needs" crept into socialist literature. It was known that the Acts of the Apostles contained a few passages on the subject of economic distribution according to "need":

"And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need." -- Acts 2:44-45

"Neither was there any among them that lacked: for those who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need." -- Acts 4:34-35

In a way typical of their habits, the utopian socialists felt that they were now required to declare that socialism is the true way to bring about a distribution of goods according to people's "needs."

The utopian movement adopted the slogan "... according to their needs" solely for the purpose of responding to Paul the Apostle with, in effect, "Anything you can do, we can do better."

Marx didn't take the slogan "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" seriously. He wrote that implementation of such an idea must wait for a future when "labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want", which, of course, requires that "all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly."

At some point later, I believe it was around the time when the Socialist Party of Great Britain was formed in 1904 as a nonreformist breakaway from the reformist Social Democratic Federation, the goal "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" began to be listed as an actual item on the agenda, one of the tangible goals of a scientific socialist program.

I also offer the criticism that "free access to all that is produced", as the SPGB, and its companion parties in various countries, often describe their goal, is essentially a "human nature" argument. It is an assertion that the human brain is known to be constructed to operate in such a way that this objective is workable -- that people will consume reasonably even if they have the opportunity to consume unreasonably, and people will work voluntarily even if they have the opportunity to abstain from working. And not merely that it may be true, but that we can rely on it being true. Scientific evidence for this conclusion: none. It is a not a scientific but a humanistic concept, arising from Rousseau's Romantic Age premise of "the perfectibility of man", "the perfectibility of human nature."

Unfortunately, the goal of "free access" may postpone the emancipation of the working class because it gives a weapon to any critic of socialism who claims that "socialism would never work" because it's "based on altruism."

Cumannach

21st February 2009, 19:22

I don't regard "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" as a serious socialist proposal.

...

I don't know if I agree with some of your points made comrade.

As I understand it,

"To each according to his need" is not some utopian phrase that came out of some argument with a christian and was lacadaiscally grafted into socialist theory simply by the turn of events.

Rather it refers to the full and true equality that will be possible under communism, and which is the only true equality. So, for example men and women are equal as human beings, but unequal physically. Let's say a man needs a few more ounces of food a day to be healthy. Well paying a man and a woman the same money for doing the same work is not then 'equality' since the man needs more money to be healthy. That's probably not a very wise example of me to draw! But you get the idea. Every person is different, some are heavier, some are weaker, some are faster. Why should someone be discriminated against because of their defects? All should receive the same remuneration for their same effort, even if the effects of the same effort differ from one person to another.

Lenin goes on about this at length in 'State and Revolution'.

JimmyJazz

21st February 2009, 19:48

Hi radicalgraffiti,

everyone would enforce it

No they wouldn't. And that's just the thing.

As I said, communism would have to be so perfect that every last person agreed it was the best possible system. Even TomK; even Murray Rothbard. And they'd also have to be educated/aware enough to know what it takes to preserve it--they've have to know what capitalism is (wage labor, unequal access to the MoP, etc), and how to prevent it from taking root again.

It's happened before, like in parts of Spain. I fully agree that it was awesome when it happened. But how long are we going to go around telling people sipping their Caramel Frappuccinos how cool Andalusia was in the 1936 and getting blank stares or meaningless nods of hypothetical agreement? I'm a pretty libertarian socialist at heart, I don't advocate forcing things on people through harsh methods, but I'm not going to sit around waiting for a spontaneous popular awakening. Capturing state power definitely has to be the focus of the socialist struggle.

it would take a lot less enforcing than private property does

Agreed. Which is why, at least in the context of a world revolution (the significance of this being that there would not lots of big, aggressive, imperialist capitalist states left to harass socialist societies from the outside), the socialist state could be much more libertarian than the capitalist state is. I don't anticipate that the socialist state would have a need to repress many people marching in the streets demanding a return of wage labor! The capitalist state, on the other hand, has massacred striking laborers all throughout the history of capitalism, as well as jailed them, beat them with clubs, restricted their right of free speech, ordered them back to work with court injunctions, etc.

So yeah, it would take a lot less enforcing. But it would take some enforcing. Why do people seem to think the only options are a mass terror-perpetrating state and no centralized administrative apparatus of any kind?

Isn't there a shitload of middle ground? The state I am proposing would not just be more 'libertarian' than Leninist Russia, it would be more libertarian than capitalist America. It would not exactly be Big Brother. But admittedly, it does depend on a world revolution.

why capitalism, why not feudalism or slave based economics? what will stop them coming back?

I don't know. In the long run, maybe nothing. (I don't really understand this question anyway...surely you wouldn't be OK with either of those systems coming back, either? :confused:)

so your saying if the deal was "you work and you can take what you want from the stores, you don't and you cant" you wouldn't work?

I'm saying that if I could work 4 hours a day and get food and shelter, or 8 hours a day and get food and shelter and entertainment, I would work 8 hours a day.

If there was a third option of working 4 hours a day and getting the same deal you get for working 8 hours a day, I would take the third option. As would most people, I think. And then the labor necessary to produce that entertainment stuff wouldn't be getting done. So that entertainment stuff would not get produced. And we'd be living on only what we could produce in 4 hours a day, which is the basic necessities. The system would collapse.

If your (not you personally, the general 'you') only goal is to have a society where you can work part-time and meet just your basic needs, can't you do that under capitalism? You may not be able to make 100k/year working for yourself, but I bet most anyone could find a way to keep themselves alive without getting exploited. Become an artist or a write articles for online magazines or something. You'll be able to make enough to live, if that is truly your only goal.

i don't really see how a high degree of division of labour is needed to maintain standers of living?

As far as I know, there is no other factor even needed to explain the incredible economic growth that occurs under capitalism. It's all just division of labor. The more extensive it gets, the more specialized the individual's labor becomes, the more society can produce in X amount of labor-time. Google "Adam smith pin factory" or "David Ricardo comparative advantage".

i agree that it is not an enjoyable job, that is why i think it should be rotated as far as possible.

Honestly, and this is just personal opinion, I'd rather just be a full-time garbage collector who gets compensated according to the value of his labor.

But personal opinion can't be dismissed. In fact, for an anarchist I think it's everything, since an anarchist revolution depends on convincing everybody. If even ten people out of the 7 billion in the world aren't sufficiently conscious of the undesirability of capitalism and of wage labor, then eventually one of them will think of a really cool new labor process that increases productivity, and he'll make a deal with his neighbors whereby they participate in the process on less than perfectly equal terms with him (thinking to themselves, "Why not? He invented it after all"), and there you go. The germ of capitalism. They'll outperform everyone else using this new process. Repeat this scenario all over the country/globe, wherever you find pockets of people who aren't ardent, educated communists. And soon the capitalist mode of production will come to dominate once more.

Or, you could just have a minimal state that enforces certain property rights and ensures equal access to any new labor process or any new technology. Enforcing such a conception of property rights would take much less force than it takes to enforce bourgeois property rights, since the socialist conception of property rights is blatantly and unarguably more democratic. As I said before, I don't exactly think people would be marching in the streets demanding a return of wage labor.

JimmyJazz

21st February 2009, 20:09

I think he's using the term 'communism' to refer to 'free access and voluntary labour', for some reason.

Yeah. How is this mistaken?

I mean, I think all the terms are muddied. Certainly the definition of communism as a "free association of producers" is something I agree with, but it seems that most people use the word to refer to the "from each according to this abilities, to each according to his needs" idea. AKA free access and voluntary labor.

How do you use it?

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/o.htm#communism

Cumannach

21st February 2009, 20:36

Here's some of what Lenin said;

"But people are not alike: one is strong, another is weak; one is married, another is not; one has more children, another has less, and so on. And the conclusion Marx draws is:

"... With an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal share in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, the right instead of being equal would have to be unequal."

The first phase of communism, therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences, in wealth will still persist, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible because it will be impossible to seize the means of production--the factories, machines, land, etc.--and make them private property. In smashing Lassalle's petty-bourgeois, vague phrases about “equality” and “justice” in general, Marx shows the course of development of communist society, which is compelled to abolish at first only the “injustice” of the means of production seized by individuals, and which is unable at once to eliminate the other injustice, which consists in the distribution of consumer goods "according to the amount of labor performed" (and not according to needs).

...

This is a “defect”, says Marx, but it is unavoidable in the first phase of communism; for if we are not to indulge in utopianism, we must not think that having overthrown capitalism people will at once learn to work for society without any rules of law. Besides, the abolition of capitalism does not immediately create the economic prerequisites for such a change."

-(State and Revolution)
Lenin

ZeroNowhere

22nd February 2009, 04:53

Yeah. How is this mistaken?

I mean, I think all the terms are muddied. Certainly the definition of communism as a "free association of producers" is something I agree with, but it seems that most people use the word to refer to the "from each according to this abilities, to each according to his needs" idea. AKA free access and voluntary labor.

How do you use it?

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/o.htm#communism
I use it in the same sense that Marx used it, that is, a synonym for socialism. What you would be referring to is the distinction between lower and higher phases of socialism/communism.
For example, the WSM generally only refers to 'socialism', but advocates free access and voluntary labour.

robbo203

22nd February 2009, 08:50

At some point later, I believe it was around the time when the Socialist Party of Great Britain was formed in 1904 as a nonreformist breakaway from the reformist Social Democratic Federation, the goal "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" began to be listed as an actual item on the agenda, one of the tangible goals of a scientific socialist program.
I also offer the criticism that "free access to all that is produced", as the SPGB, and its companion parties in various countries, often describe their goal, is essentially a "human nature" argument. It is an assertion that the human brain is known to be constructed to operate in such a way that this objective is workable -- that people will consume reasonably even if they have the opportunity to consume unreasonably, and people will work voluntarily even if they have the opportunity to abstain from working. And not merely that it may be true, but that we can rely on it being true. Scientific evidence for this conclusion: none. It is a not a scientific but a humanistic concept, arising from Rousseau's Romantic Age premise of "the perfectibility of man", "the perfectibility of human nature."
Unfortunately, the goal of "free access" may postpone the emancipation of the working class because it gives a weapon to any critic of socialism who claims that "socialism would never work" because it's "based on altruism."

Im puzzled by this claim. It is true that socialism entails and indeed must entail an element of altruism - a regard for the welfare of others - but no socialist I know would think that that is all it entails. All would say it involves an element of self interest as well - enlightened self interest if you like. I mean what exactly are you suggesting here? That the establishment of socialism/ communism should not be associated with altruism in any shape or form ? But as I have pointed out elsewhwere it is precisely that kind of assertion that plays into the hands of critics of socialism who uncritically level the human nature argument at socialism (the notion that people are intrinsically uncooperative, greedy , lazy and so on on). If you are purely driven by self interested motives why bother with socialism? Why not just go out and get what you can from capitalism. Become a capitalist if you will.

I think your comments on the origin of the expression from each according to ability to each according to needs are speculative at best. Whatever the case may be this idea neverthless expresses the very essence of genuine communism/socialism - free access and voluntary labour - and I would deny that Marx was not serious about this. It is implicit in huge chunks of his writings. Much of what he wrote about alienation, for example, would be quite meaningless without some notion of communism as a social destination for humankind.

You seem to be saying is no scientific evidence to warrant that "From each according to ability to each according to need " could work. It depends what you mean by "scientific evidence". There is plenty of evidence that human beings are capable of living in a huge variery of different types of societies. There is the evidence that most of our existence on this planet has been under a system of what is loosely called primitive communism. I would add that that in the field of evolutionary psychology in which the notion of group selection is coming back into favour, there is also evidence that morality may be a group adaption - a claim that goes back to Darwin himself - and that this has important consequences for the notion of communism as a kind of moral economy - a generalised gift economy

LOLseph Stalin

22nd February 2009, 09:06

The only "Communists" that I consider Communist are Marx and Engels(obvious reasons), Lenin, and Trotsky. The rest were idiots who decided that Communism is a cooler way to be a dictator. :p

robbo203

22nd February 2009, 09:26

Actually, a market is more complex than this. A market involves the ability of those who are selling goods to set the price at which they are sold, free from the control of any institution such as the state, and to increase or reduce the level of output in order to cope with changes in demand. A market can also be taken to mean the existence of multiple producers who compete with each other in order to capture a larger share of the consumers, although this aspect of the definition is more controversial. In the Soviet Union, both output and price were controlled by the central government, and were set in accordance with the national plan, in order to achieve the government's aims. The question of whether a market exists is not, in itself, relevant to the question of whether a given economy is capitalist or not, because the defining feature of capitalism is the circulation and accumulation of capital.

I agree that markets in reality are more complex than simply the mere buying and selling of commodities. We are talking about the institutional context in which markets operate. Neverthless the essence of what a market is about is the buying and selling of commodities and it was not for nothing that the Communist Manifesto called for the "communistic abolition of buying and selling".

What you seem to be suggesting is that a market is not a market unless it is a free market. This is completely wrong. You are confusing the institutional context in which markets operate with markets per se

You also claim that "In the Soviet Union, both output and price were controlled by the central government, and were set in accordance with the national plan, in order to achieve the government's aims". This is a myth. There is plenty of evidence - see for example, Kushnirsky `Soviet Economic Planning 1965-1980 - that soviet planning while setting targets and purportedly guiding performance had to be constantly adjusted to reflect performance. While formally and legalistically state enterprises had their hands tied in economic decisionmaking in reality this was far less the case than is sometimes imagined. And as I have pointed out elsewhere exchanges between state enterpises did take the form of monetary and market exchanges

To counterpose planning to the market as Bettelheim has pointed out is naive. Both exist in vary degrees in both state capitalist and mixed economies and not just because of the growing and inevitable integration of the former into the global capitalist market, Ultimately soviet planners had to be responsive to what the market dictated. For while it is true that the profits and losses of state enterprises were absorbed by the state, the state could not be indiffernet to the overall rate of profit. To do so would be to court economic disaster

robbo203

22nd February 2009, 11:18

What makes "state property" in "the West" capitalist, precisely? Is it because it's owned by the state?
No, it's because it's nationalized by the bourgeoisie, who privately own the means of production. The bourgeoisie nationalizes some industries and some entities depending on the country, but they do not nationalize all of them; why? The bourgeoisie depends on private ownership. That's Marxism..

So state property in the West is capitalist not because it is owned by the state but because it is nationalised by the bourgeoisie, according to you. I take it then that you accept that this nationalised state property in the west does not belong "to the people" and that since it is does not belong to the people is is sectionally owned, In other words it is owned by a section of the people - the bourgeoisie. Sectional ownership is private ownership. It means others are excluded from access to what is owned (in this case by the bourgeosie collectively). You earlier rejected my claim that state ownershp is a variant of private ownership; now it seems you are coming around to accepting it!

What you now need to recognise as Engels pointed out is that the more the state takes over the means of production the more does it become the "national capitalist" . In the Soviet Union, Lenin fully recognised the need for state capitalism and indeed was rather attracted by the German model under Bismarck. There was no difference in kind betwween the state capitalism of the West and the state capitalism of the Soviet Union only a difference in degree (there was always an element of private capitalism in the Soviet Union anyway and not just in the black economy - in the 1920s foreign concessionary companies were allowed to operate in the SU extracting high rates of profits). The Soviet ruling class played precisely the same role and performed precisely the same function as their bourgeois counterparts in the west. - to oversee the accumulation of capital and the extraction of surplus value from wage workers from which such capital is accumulated

If a capitalist retires with a fat bonus, is s/he no longer a capitalist? Yes, s/he is, even though she is no longer directly exploiting workers. If a capitalist loses his/her position within his/her company, is s/he still a capitalist? Yes, s/he is...

If someone is able to live off the proceeds of investment without the need to sell his or her labour power than, yes, that person is a capitalist. If that person retires with a fat bonus which is invested to add to that persons investment portfolio then, yes, that person is still a capitalist. But if a capitalist loses his/her postion with his/her company - how, BTW if it is his or her company? - and let us say goes bankrupt then, no, that person is no longer a capitalist but an ex-capitalist

If a capitalist finds themselves out of power, they do not lose their class character. They still promote their interests as capitalists, they seek the reestablishment of capitalism. Class conflict does not disappear when capitalist relations are overturned (you might think that if you're an anarchist, which you are)....

Actually, this only goes to show how far removed your position is from a marxist one. Marx made clear that capitalists were merely the personification of capital. Your class character derives from your de facto membership of an economic class - your relation to the means of production. The question of political power is irrelevant. The capitalists may not yet have captured political power but they can still function as capitalists on the economic field. However if you "overturn" capitalist relations of production then in a strictly marxist sense it follows that you cannot have capitalists (or wage workers) any more becuase these class categories define what is meant by "capitalist relations"

Power does not come from the "top" or "bottom" in any state, it comes from the class which has conquered political authority. Your premise is essentially an anarchist one. Nevertheless, the character of a state is measured first and foremost by the social relations which it enshrines in law and defends with force. The Soviet system saw collectivized property, the abolition of private property and the capitalist mode of production. This means that, scientifically, the Soviet Union was socialist and not capitalist.)....

We ve been here already. The collectivisation of property so called was simply nationalisation of said property - its formal ownership by the state. BUt as in the west (which you seem now to agree with me) where state property does not mean it is owned by the people, so in the SU state property cannot be said to have belonged tothe people either. Logically or if you prefer "scientifically" that means it can only be privately owbned by a sub-set of the population - the collective class that controlled and therefore owned the means of production. This small class oversaw the process of capital accumulation in the SU which neccesarily implies the retention of a capitalist mode of production albeit one based on ownership by the national capitalists to quote Engels again rather than individual capitalists

.

You suggested it by saying that the "material conditions" necessary for communism are technology and not class conflict. You stated that in this very moment, we possess the material conditions necessary for communism, which is absolutely ridiculous to anyone who knows the first thing about Marxism. Evidently, you're not one of them

If that is so then why was Engels even back in the late 19th century speculating on the possibility that the second industrial revolution had produced a level of technological development that had begun to make communism a distinct and indeed immediate possibility?

.

More idiocy. Please review my response to Lynx, it covers why the USSR didn't operate in any way like a capitalist economy. Workers in the Soviet Union were payed with wages and they used these wages to buy stuff. It was never my position that they didn't. What I DID argue, however, is that the wage system existed for completely different purposes and served completely different interests. If you'd be so kind to actually read my posts (specifically the one I noted earlier), perhaps you'd be able to understand this.

There is an expression - if something quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck then it is a reasonable assumption that it is a duck. Workers were paid wages in the SU to buy stuff but somehow for some mystical hard-to-define reason the payment of wages was for a completely different purpose and served "completely different interests" according to you.So are you saying that it was not the case that the high the wage bill faced by a state enterprise in the SU the less there would be left over for other purposes - including capital accumulation.. You really must be getting desparate if you have to resort to such an absymally poor and sloppy argument

.

This is typical of simple-minded radicals. What you're talking about doesn't decisively determine whether a society is capitalist or socialist. Marx wrote about this in length in 18 Brumaire, specifically that the capitalist class had been politically defeated while capitalism remained in existence. Napoleon II did overwhelm the bourgeoisie politically through his coup, but did he presided over distinctly capitalist social relations. Thus, capitalism existed while the capitalist class was disempowered.

Exactly. This is not what I denied . What I denied was your assertion that capitalist relations could be "overturned" i.e. done away with, while there will still capitalists. You are actually proving my point for me! It is possible for the capitalists to be politically disempowered but for capitalist relations of production to remain in tact. What is not possible in my view is for a communist class conscious proletariat to capture political power AND allow these exploitative relationship to continue. Despite you rabbiting on the about the Dictatorship of the Proletariat being so crucual to Marx I dont think it was . The communist manifesto was quite clear about the need for the workers to abolish themselves as a class and capitalism as a whoile (read the relevant section at the end of the Manifesto). The DOTP was in my view just an expedient and an unfortunately worded turn of phrase that has been grossly misinterpreted and missaplied by Leninists of all hues. It was was put forward as an idea with the aim of developing the forces of production in hothouse fashion to the point where communism could become a possibility; It is entirely irrlevant now anyway

.

Further, you keep attempting to equate state power with ownership, which is just silly. Ownership, at least in the capitalist sense, revolves around making profit from the buying and selling of labor in order to produce capital. Soviet bureaucrats did not do this.
Just as importantly, you keep equating decision making with capitalism, which is just stupid. Even if you characterize the Soviet bureaucracy as having all the power, you need to account for the fact that their very existence made impossible capitalist relations. Labor was not being exploited, commodity production had been marginalized. If your position was true, then Louis XIV, Diocletian, Suleyman the Magnificent, Alexander the Great and others who "exercised overwhelming power" would be capitalist! Surely, this would be an insipid claim, considering none of them promoted the interests of capitalists. That's essentially the foolish idea you're trying to convince us of: the bureaucrats were capitalist because they had power.

It is hardly convincing as a counter argument to dismiss someone else's argument as just stupid without actually dealing with it. I did not suggest that the mere exercise of overwhelming power by an entity or person made that entiry a capitalist entity, did I now? It is the context in which power is exercised that determines the character of that entity. Alexander the Great etc etc as far as I know were not living in a capitalist era and could hardly be charactersied as representatives of the capitalist class. But note what you have conceded here. That such individuals were representative of a particular class in the same way that the Soviet Bureacrats were representative of a particular class. As a class the latter had interests separate from and different to the Russian working class. You do not surely deny that there was the buying and selling of labour power in the SU and that wages were the price of this labour power. Wages differentials in the Soviet Union reflected the marxian law of value. The profits of state enterprises depended upon keeping the wages costs as low as possible - like any other capitalist enterprise - and while there was undoubtedly more leeway at the level of indivdual enterprises to get away with not making a profit at the macro-economic level this was certainly not the case. Soviet bureaucrats certainly required at this level an overall level of profit without which the whole process of capital accumulation would have stalled completely

The soviet ruling class did exercise overwhelming power and this you can hardly deny. That they constituted a class by virtue of their complete control over the apparatus of decisionmaking is equally undeniable. The only point of difference left is whether this complete control was tantamount to de facto ownership of the means of production by this collectivity - the nomenklatura. I say yes it was because you cannot ultimately separate ownership and control. Ownership is an expression of ultimate control and VICE VERSA. Instead of just insipdly dismissing this as an "anarchist" argument, how about actually getting to grips with it - if you can

manic expression

22nd February 2009, 16:40

So state property in the West is capitalist not because it is owned by the state but because it is nationalised by the bourgeoisie, according to you. I take it then that you accept that this nationalised state property in the west does not belong "to the people" and that since it is does not belong to the people is is sectionally owned, In other words it is owned by a section of the people - the bourgeoisie. Sectional ownership is private ownership. It means others are excluded from access to what is owned (in this case by the bourgeosie collectively). You earlier rejected my claim that state ownershp is a variant of private ownership; now it seems you are coming around to accepting it!

You're missing the point entirely, again. Do try to pay attention.

If a capitalist government nationalizes an industry, it does it for specific reasons to reach specific ends. Namely, if it deems it a so-called "natural monopoly". Amtrak in the US is, IIRC, the only state-owned company in existence. This is not a coincidence, it's because the bourgeoisie doesn't nationalize many industries because it can't. Amtrak's bureaucrats aren't making direct profit from the company (partially because there are no profits, but that's another issue), they don't own it, they don't themselves employ the workers, they aren't involved in a capitalist enterprise. The only reason Amtrak can be defined as capitalist is because of its position within a bourgeois state. If Amtrak existed in a state that abolished private property and did not rely on commodity production or wage labor, like the USSR, then it would lose completely its bourgeois character.

What you now need to recognise as Engels pointed out is that the more the state takes over the means of production the more does it become the "national capitalist" . In the Soviet Union, Lenin fully recognised the need for state capitalism and indeed was rather attracted by the German model under Bismarck. There was no difference in kind betwween the state capitalism of the West and the state capitalism of the Soviet Union only a difference in degree (there was always an element of private capitalism in the Soviet Union anyway and not just in the black economy - in the 1920s foreign concessionary companies were allowed to operate in the SU extracting high rates of profits). The Soviet ruling class played precisely the same role and performed precisely the same function as their bourgeois counterparts in the west. - to oversee the accumulation of capital and the extraction of surplus value from wage workers from which such capital is accumulated

Once more, you're peddling fiction as if it's valid. Lenin used the term "state capitalism" in a completely different way than you are. Lenin's "state capitalism" consisted of a limited market under the direct control of the working class. The "state capitalism" YOU are attributing to the USSR is quite different. We've been over this before, but it's not surprising you persist in your duplicity (people who have no arguments usually do).

And if you'd be so kind as to define this state capitalism in western Europe, you might give your position some support. As of now, you haven't.

If someone is able to live off the proceeds of investment without the need to sell his or her labour power than, yes, that person is a capitalist. If that person retires with a fat bonus which is invested to add to that persons investment portfolio then, yes, that person is still a capitalist. But if a capitalist loses his/her postion with his/her company - how, BTW if it is his or her company? - and let us say goes bankrupt then, no, that person is no longer a capitalist but an ex-capitalist

Yes, in the case of going bankrupt, they are still capitalist. You need to discard the mechanicalist view of society. Most of the time, "going bankrupt" in capitalist society means living the good life in early retirement; that's the way the bankruptcy rules are set up. So your impression of the bourgeois state is flawed in the first place. Second, a class which has been overthrown can still exist and can still promote its interests.

Once more, the monarchy and nobility of France had been overthrown and cast out of France by 1792; they were denied the means with which to exploit the French peasantry and middle class, and yet they restored their powers in 1815. Keep dancing around history.

Actually, this only goes to show how far removed your position is from a marxist one. Marx made clear that capitalists were merely the personification of capital. Your class character derives from your de facto membership of an economic class - your relation to the means of production. The question of political power is irrelevant.

Read my post again. I was saying that the loss of political power does not liquidate the capitalist class. In a word, I was saying that the loss of political power is irrelevant. Nice try, though.

The capitalists may not yet have captured political power but they can still function as capitalists on the economic field. However if you "overturn" capitalist relations of production then in a strictly marxist sense it follows that you cannot have capitalists (or wage workers) any more becuase these class categories define what is meant by "capitalist relations"

Yes, just like the feudal mode of production was overturned in the French Revolution. But voila, the nobles came back. You expect us to believe that the capitalists will simply disappear after the revolution, that they will have no ideological or material ambitions. This is both immature and patently naive. The bourgeoisie has shown it can exist when denied the means to exploit the workers, which is exactly what the USSR did during its existence.

We ve been here already. The collectivisation of property so called was simply nationalisation of said property - its formal ownership by the state.

And that state did not produce anything through the capitalist mode of production. Please review what I said before instead of engaging in childish wishful thinking.

BUt as in the west (which you seem now to agree with me) where state property does not mean it is owned by the people, so in the SU state property cannot be said to have belonged tothe people either.

First, I never disagreed on the point that state property in the US is not owned by the people.

What is clear, however, is that the only state-run industry in the US is not administered by actual capitalists but by members of a bourgeois state. Further, Amtrak's bureaucrats only qualify as bourgeois because of their membership in this sort of state, as the bourgeois state promotes and defends private property. In contrast, the Soviet state abolished and guarded against private property. That's the difference you've been ignoring.

Logically or if you prefer "scientifically" that means it can only be privately owbned by a sub-set of the population - the collective class that controlled and therefore owned the means of production. This small class oversaw the process of capital accumulation in the SU which neccesarily implies the retention of a capitalist mode of production albeit one based on ownership by the national capitalists to quote Engels again rather than individual capitalists

The capitalist mode of production is marked by wage labor, generalized commodity production and ownership of private property. No bureaucrat owned private property, no bureaucrat employed workers, no bureaucrat gained capital through profit.

But keep saying the same old crap, kid, it's fitting for someone who ignores facts.

If that is so then why was Engels even back in the late 19th century speculating on the possibility that the second industrial revolution had produced a level of technological development that had begun to make communism a distinct and indeed immediate possibility?

That is a technological observation. It has nothing to do with the presence of class conflict, which is the decisive factor in material conditions. Your continued denial of class conflict is typical of your infantile anti-Marxism.

There is an expression - if something quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck then it is a reasonable assumption that it is a duck. Workers were paid wages in the SU to buy stuff but somehow for some mystical hard-to-define reason the payment of wages was for a completely different purpose and served "completely different interests" according to you.

It's only "mystical" to you because you're incapable of comprehending it. If you actually read my post you might understand. However, it's a long shot given your inability to grasp Marxism.

So are you saying that it was not the case that the high the wage bill faced by a state enterprise in the SU the less there would be left over for other purposes - including capital accumulation.. You really must be getting desparate if you have to resort to such an absymally poor and sloppy argument

What I'm saying is all in that post. You'd do well to actually read it, kid.

Exactly. This is not what I denied . What I denied was your assertion that capitalist relations could be "overturned" i.e. done away with, while there will still capitalists.

French feudal social relations were overturned and the feudal classes continued to exist and later reconquered their position. Capitalist social relations were overturned in the October Revolution, and the capitalist elements of Russia continued to exist (alongside Russia's feudal elements, ironically enough).

History, again, proves your insipid arguments wrong.

You are actually proving my point for me! It is possible for the capitalists to be politically disempowered but for capitalist relations of production to remain in tact. What is not possible in my view is for a communist class conscious proletariat to capture political power AND allow these exploitative relationship to continue. Despite you rabbiting on the about the Dictatorship of the Proletariat being so crucual to Marx I dont think it was .

That's the thing: the class conscious proletariat of Russia DID abolish capitalist social relations. That's what the Soviet state was founded on, and this did not fundamentally changed until the late 80's. Please crack open a history book sometime.

And the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is crucial to Marxism. It's what separates it from anarchism. It's only natural that you'd question it, because you're just a deluded anarchist who likes Marx's beard.

The communist manifesto was quite clear about the need for the workers to abolish themselves as a class and capitalism as a whoile (read the relevant section at the end of the Manifesto).

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Yeah, that's right, "workers of the world, unite!" really meant "workers of the world, stop being workers!" :lol:

You really have no idea what Marxism is.

The DOTP was in my view just an expedient and an unfortunately worded turn of phrase that has been grossly misinterpreted and missaplied by Leninists of all hues. It was was put forward as an idea with the aim of developing the forces of production in hothouse fashion to the point where communism could become a possibility; It is entirely irrlevant now anyway

That's nice.

Now please read my posts.

It is hardly convincing as a counter argument to dismiss someone else's argument as just stupid without actually dealing with it.

I have dealt with every single one of your arguments, and I've refuted all of them. You've been repeating the same crap for weeks, the only problem is that it contradicts Marxism and history and reason.

So yeah, it is convincing to dismiss your arguments as stupid, because I've demonstrated why.

I did not suggest that the mere exercise of overwhelming power by an entity or person made that entiry a capitalist entity, did I now? It is the context in which power is exercised that determines the character of that entity. Alexander the Great etc etc as far as I know were not living in a capitalist era and could hardly be charactersied as representatives of the capitalist class.

What you are saying (and you'll say it later in your post) is that complete control implies capitalist control. This is false, for the control of non-bourgeois states is surely not capitalist. You have to prove that the Soviet state was bourgeois, and "complete control" is simply an insufficient point. As we will later see, it is your ONLY point, making your argument less than insufficient.

At any rate, your folly is in believing (without evidence, kind of like a Christian) that the Soviet bureaucracy was capitalist. You have yet to demonstrate this in any real way. You mumble about "collective ownership", but you fail to notice that they had no ownership of anything; and further, they could not own anything capitalist because nothing capitalist existed.

You have yet to prove the existence of "de facto" private property.

You have yet to prove the existence of a "de facto" capitalist class.

You have yet to prove the existence of "de facto" capitalist wage labor.

You have yet to prove the existence of "de facto" commodity production.

You have yet to make an argument.

But note what you have conceded here. That such individuals were representative of a particular class in the same way that the Soviet Bureacrats were representative of a particular class. As a class the latter had interests separate from and different to the Russian working class.

It's your assertion they were a class. Are you saying Louis Bonaparte was a class all onto himself?

You do not surely deny that there was the buying and selling of labour power in the SU and that wages were the price of this labour power. Wages differentials in the Soviet Union reflected the marxian law of value. The profits of state enterprises depended upon keeping the wages costs as low as possible - like any other capitalist enterprise - and while there was undoubtedly more leeway at the level of indivdual enterprises to get away with not making a profit at the macro-economic level this was certainly not the case. Soviet bureaucrats certainly required at this level an overall level of profit without which the whole process of capital accumulation would have stalled completely

The soviet ruling class did exercise overwhelming power and this you can hardly deny. That they constituted a class by virtue of their complete control over the apparatus of decisionmaking is equally undeniable.

Control over the "apparatus of decision making" is not qualification for being a class. Louis Bonaparte established his power over the French Republic, ending the rule of the bourgeoisie. However, he was not a class, and Marx was quick to point out how he defeated all of France's classes to achieve power.

Your argument goes against Marxism once more.

The only point of difference left is whether this complete control was tantamount to de facto ownership of the means of production by this collectivity - the nomenklatura. I say yes it was because you cannot ultimately separate ownership and control.

It's not about separating anything, it's about analyzing what the Soviet bureaucrats actually did. Control does not imply capitalist ownership, and I've illustrated this multiple times. Were that the case, all the leaders I listed who weren't capitalist would be capitalist. They had "control", did they not?

The point here is that you are blindly equating "control" and "capitalist ownership", which is just absurd. You need to show how the Soviet bureaucrats were bourgeois, and this is difficult given they didn't make profit or own private property or employ workers. Remember, "control" isn't a valid argument because it doesn't necessarily equal capitalism.

Ownership is an expression of ultimate control and VICE VERSA. Instead of just insipdly dismissing this as an "anarchist" argument, how about actually getting to grips with it - if you can

So Alexander the Great's "ultimate control" (because it was) means capitalist ownership? Neat argument, sounds a lot like an anarchist's: all states are oppressive and thus all states are equally exploitative.

Anyway, it's more than obvious you're just peddling a pathetic circular argument that makes no sense. Control does not equal capitalist ownership (and there's a distinct difference between capitalist ownership and other forms of ownership, as any Marxist would know, unlike you, but that's another issue), control means control, and if that control exists in a society that has abolished private property and generalized commodity production, then there is no logical way to call the state "capitalist".

robbo203

22nd February 2009, 20:57

You're missing the point entirely, again. Do try to pay attention.

If a capitalist government nationalizes an industry, it does it for specific reasons to reach specific ends. Namely, if it deems it a so-called "natural monopoly". Amtrak in the US is, IIRC, the only state-owned company in existence. This is not a coincidence, it's because the bourgeoisie doesn't nationalize many industries because it can't. Amtrak's bureaucrats aren't making direct profit from the company (partially because there are no profits, but that's another issue), they don't own it, they don't themselves employ the workers, they aren't involved in a capitalist enterprise. The only reason Amtrak can be defined as capitalist is because of its position within a bourgeois state. If Amtrak existed in a state that abolished private property and did not rely on commodity production or wage labor, like the USSR, then it would lose completely its bourgeois character.".

This is getting silly now. We have already established that workers in the Soviet Union were paid wages have we not? We have already established that goods and services in the Soviet Union were commodities bought and sold on a market, have we not? Are you denying this facts. Go and read the literature on the economic history of the Soviet Union and maybe you will learn something.

You lecture me about not attending to what you write. You evidently did not attend to what I wrote. I was not referring to the reasons why certain concerns are nationalised in the West; I was talking about the status of nationalised property itself and who owns it. Please pay attention! My argument was simply that nationalised property whether in the west or in the Soviet Union does not in any meaningful sense belong to the people. It is sectionally owned. You have already agreed that this is the case for the West. Now you have only to discard your ideological blinkers to see that it applied also to the Soviet Union: that the ruling class who controlled the state apparatus effectively owned the means of production and the disposal of the economic surplus. Ultimate control is ownership and vice versa.

Once more, you're peddling fiction as if it's valid. Lenin used the term "state capitalism" in a completely different way than you are. Lenin's "state capitalism" consisted of a limited market under the direct control of the working class. The "state capitalism" YOU are attributing to the USSR is quite different. We've been over this before, but it's not surprising you persist in your duplicity (people who have no arguments usually do).
.

People who have no other argument to resort than the childish and rather boring ad hominens such as you are constantly prone to are I suspect more likely to be duplicitous

I am well aware, thank you very much, of the distinction Lenin makes between his state capitalism - state capitalist monopoly by the people - and state capitalism in the sense as ownership by the national capitalists to use Engels expression. My view is that Lenin was talking a load of bollocks as usual. In practice his notion of state capitalism would come to be precisely the same thing as what is meant by the state capitalism in the West except that there would be more of it. The people no more more owned state proeprty in the Soviet Union than they did in the West. There is absolutely no vital difference in the practical relation of the people to state property there than in the West apart freom tghe legal fiction that it is owned by them. Name one signifianct way in which there is a difference . You cant and you know it .And before you starting ranting about Amtrak again Im not talking about the reasons for nationalising certain concerns but the nature of state property itself. Geddit?

Yes, in the case of going bankrupt, they are still capitalist. You need to discard the mechanicalist view of society. Most of the time, "going bankrupt" in capitalist society means living the good life in early retirement; that's the way the bankruptcy rules are set up. So your impression of the bourgeois state is flawed in the first place. Second, a class which has been overthrown can still exist and can still promote its interests..

A capitalist that has gone bankrupt means forfeiture of assets and loss of earnings, depriving said individual of the capital - or at least of sufficient capital - to live upon without having to selling their ability to work. That means his or she is now an ex capitalist. That is pretty obvious I would have thought. Are you seriously suggesting that someone without sufficient capital to live upon can be a capitalist. If so this puts you outside the marxian tradition and contradicts the way in which marxists define capitalists.

Yes a class that has been overthrown can still exists and can still promote its own interests but only if the corresponding relations of production still operate in practice. A capitalist cannot exist if the practice of exploiting wage labour ceases to exist. As Marx pointed out wage labour and capital presuppose each other and condition each other and indeed it is for this reason that we marxists insist against the all the mind numbing subterfuge of Leninist doubletalk that capitalism clearly existed in the USSR for the reason that wage labour clearly existed there as well. Not only did it exist but people like Stalin were in the forefront of promoting ever widening wage differentials on the grounds that wage equality was an evil.

Once more, the monarchy and nobility of France had been overthrown and cast out of France by 1792; they were denied the means with which to exploit the French peasantry and middle class, and yet they restored their powers in 1815. Keep dancing around history.Read my post again. I was saying that the loss of political power does not liquidate the capitalist class. In a word, I was saying that the loss of political power is irrelevant. Nice try, though.
..

And what precisely is your point? If they were overthrown and deprived of the means of exploiting the peasantry in the period 1792-1815 that means that for the duration of that period they were ex-nobility, not recognised as nobility. This doesnt contradict anything I said about the capitalists being overthrown. If they continue to function as capitalists that means the means of exploiting wage labour are still at their disposal; if not, then they would no longer be capitalists but ex-capitalists. All very uncontroversial I would have thought

Yes, just like the feudal mode of production was overturned in the French Revolution. But voila, the nobles came back. You expect us to believe that the capitalists will simply disappear after the revolution, that they will have no ideological or material ambitions. This is both immature and patently naive. The bourgeoisie has shown it can exist when denied the means to exploit the workers, which is exactly what the USSR did during its existence...

Oh dear. Here we go again. More gratuitous insults to cover up a gaping hole in the argument. I repeat without the means to exploit the workers how can a capitalist continue to be a capitalist. This is absurd. I can hear old Charlie Marx chuckling in his beard all the way from Highgate cemetrary at such inanities. The person who once was a capitalist may certainly entertain thoughts of once again becoming a capitalist - that I dont deny. But entertaiining suich thoughts does not make one a capitalist does it now? You are way off beam here and I suspect you are probably beginning to realise this now (and regret that you have gone down this particular road)

And that state did not produce anything through the capitalist mode of production. Please review what I said before instead of engaging in childish wishful thinking....

But if what you said before just basically consists of childish ad hominens such as this then you dont give me or anyone else much encouragement to review it

First, I never disagreed on the point that state property in the US is not owned by the people
What is clear, however, is that the only state-run industry in the US is not administered by actual capitalists but by members of a bourgeois state. Further, Amtrak's bureaucrats only qualify as bourgeois because of their membership in this sort of state, as the bourgeois state promotes and defends private property. In contrast, the Soviet state abolished and guarded against private property. That's the difference you've been ignoring......

Ah a breakthrough of sorts at last. Now you concede at long last that state property in the US is not owned by the people. The next thing we need to get from you is some idea of who you think owns this state property if not the people. Someboidy owns it afterall so who? OK it may not be actually administered by capitalists but in whoses interests is it administered? The capitalists! You said it youself. So now we begin to see the difference between conventional westen capitalism and Soviet state capitalism. Those who adminster state property in the USSR are the actual capitalist class whereas those who administer nationalised concerns in the West do so on behalf of and in the interests of the capitalist class as a whole. It is in that sense that capitalist class exercise ultimate control over and de facto ownership over the nationalised means of production which you have agreed are not owned by the people. The difference in the case of the Soviet Union is that the capitalist class and those who administered the state machine and took all the important decisions were one and the same section of the population

The capitalist mode of production is marked by wage labor, generalized commodity production and ownership of private property. No bureaucrat owned private property, no bureaucrat employed workers, no bureaucrat gained capital through profit.

But keep saying the same old crap, kid, it's fitting for someone who ignores facts......

I prefer to ignore the same old ad hominen crap you come out with and stick to facts. The fact is, as I said time and time again (but you ignored time and time again), that it is not essential that individual bureaucrats directly employ wage labour for this to be a capitalist relation. It can be done instead through the state which represents the interests of the collective capitalist class as in the USSR. Individual capitalist exploitation is not neccessary to capitalism and this was noted by Marx long ago when he commented on the rise of the joint stock company.

That is a technological observation. It has nothing to do with the presence of class conflict, which is the decisive factor in material conditions. Your continued denial of class conflict is typical of your infantile anti-Marxism.......

If somebody else is reading this post please point out to this individual that my "continued denial of class conflict" is like most of what he has to say is the product of an over fertile imagination. What next am I going to be accused of I wonder. Saying that something was not a reference to class conflict can by no stretch of the imagination be considered tantamount to denying class conflict

Yeah, that's right, "workers of the world, unite!" really meant "workers of the world, stop being workers!" :lol:.......

Yes thats right. it means stop allowing yourself to be an exploited class. The fact that you sneer at such a sentiment speaks volumes. We know now pretty well which side of the class struggle you support and it aint the side of the workers thats for sure

manic expression

22nd February 2009, 23:22

This is getting silly now. We have already established that workers in the Soviet Union were paid wages have we not?

Please read my post pertaining to that very subject, it debunks your superficial argument. In fact, if you remember, it's the exact same post you failed to respond to last time we discussed this.

We have already established that goods and services in the Soviet Union were commodities bought and sold on a market, have we not?

No, "we" haven't. More importantly, the facts show otherwise: there was a state monopoly on your so-called "market".

Are you denying this facts. Go and read the literature on the economic history of the Soviet Union and maybe you will learn something.

You mean the sources you haven't provided? Yeah, they would be interesting, if you posted them, which you haven't.

You lecture me about not attending to what you write. You evidently did not attend to what I wrote. I was not referring to the reasons why certain concerns are nationalised in the West; I was talking about the status of nationalised property itself and who owns it. Please pay attention! My argument was simply that nationalised property whether in the west or in the Soviet Union does not in any meaningful sense belong to the people. It is sectionally owned. You have already agreed that this is the case for the West. Now you have only to discard your ideological blinkers to see that it applied also to the Soviet Union: that the ruling class who controlled the state apparatus effectively owned the means of production and the disposal of the economic surplus. Ultimate control is ownership and vice versa.

No, you weren't writing about why bourgeois states nationalize industries because you don't understand why they do. Trying to talk about bourgeois nationalization while neglecting the reasons, consequences and motivations for that is just absurd, and that's exactly what you're trying to do. It's not surprising, though, that you can't grasp this, because your entire argument is immature to start with. I outlined the conditions by which bourgeois nations nationalize industry (as well as the frequency with which this is done), and it directly contradicts your argument. Keep ignoring it, it's easier than thinking about it critically.

Moving on, once more, you're trying to equate control with capitalist ownership, which is just dumb. Alexander the Great, then, was a capitalist, as was Louis XIV. In order to determine that control is equal to capitalist ownership, you have to show that the basis of capitalist society existed. Needless to say, you haven't; and you won't, because you can't.

Lastly, just to reiterate, to draw a line between all forms of nationalization and call them similar is, again, foolish. Marx himself promoted the nationalization of all industry; according to you, this would mean capitalism, for a "ruling class" would "own" the means of production through its "control" of the "state apparatus". You make anti-Marxist conclusions time and again.

People who have no other argument to resort than the childish and rather boring ad hominens such as you are constantly prone to are I suspect more likely to be duplicitous

They're not ad hominem attacks, they're fair characterizations of your nonexistent argument. Your manufactured outrage doesn't exactly help you in that regard.

I am well aware, thank you very much, of the distinction Lenin makes between his state capitalism - state capitalist monopoly by the people - and state capitalism in the sense as ownership by the national capitalists to use Engels expression.

You just said Lenin was openly promoting "state capitalism", which is just untrue.

My view is that Lenin was talking a load of bollocks as usual. In practice his notion of state capitalism would come to be precisely the same thing as what is meant by the state capitalism in the West except that there would be more of it. The people no more more owned state proeprty in the Soviet Union than they did in the West. There is absolutely no vital difference in the practical relation of the people to state property there than in the West apart freom tghe legal fiction that it is owned by them. Name one signifianct way in which there is a difference . You cant and you know it .

No, his notion of "state capitalism" was not capitalism in practice at all, and in fact following the NEP centralization became widespread and almost universal in every respect, agriculture and industry alike.

And you have yet to give a meaningful example of "state capitalism" in "the West".

And before you starting ranting about Amtrak again Im not talking about the reasons for nationalising certain concerns but the nature of state property itself. Geddit?

The reasons for nationalization, unseperable with class conflict, is one in the same as the nature of said nationalization. Nationalization under Hitler is far different than nationalization under FDR; any idiot can tell you that. Yet you stubbornly refuse to see the underlying issue: that nationalization can be done by different groups for different reasons with different consequences.

Your stark ignorance to the class dynamics of nationalization are, I suppose, appropriate, considering the fact that you're not a Marxist.

A capitalist that has gone bankrupt means forfeiture of assets and loss of earnings, depriving said individual of the capital - or at least of sufficient capital - to live upon without having to selling their ability to work. That means his or she is now an ex capitalist. That is pretty obvious I would have thought. Are you seriously suggesting that someone without sufficient capital to live upon can be a capitalist. If so this puts you outside the marxian tradition and contradicts the way in which marxists define capitalists.

More mechanicalist analysis. Losing your position within a system does not necessarily make you lose your identity. If that were the case, then businessmen-turned-politicians would be "ex capitalists"; small-businessmen-turned-cops would be "ex capitalists"; workers laid off last week would be "ex workers". All of these silly arguments are basically similar to your own silly argument.

Lastly, the French Revolution and the return of the nobility and monarchy, once more, proves you completely and utterly wrong.

Yes a class that has been overthrown can still exists and can still promote its own interests but only if the corresponding relations of production still operate in practice. A capitalist cannot exist if the practice of exploiting wage labour ceases to exist. As Marx pointed out wage labour and capital presuppose each other and condition each other and indeed it is for this reason that we marxists insist against the all the mind numbing subterfuge of Leninist doubletalk that capitalism clearly existed in the USSR for the reason that wage labour clearly existed there as well. Not only did it exist but people like Stalin were in the forefront of promoting ever widening wage differentials on the grounds that wage equality was an evil.

No, that's just untrue. The feudal mode of production had been abolished after the French Revolution, and yet the nobility survived. Were these new families that spontaneously spawned in 1815 with the same names and lineages as the old families? Did Lafeyette disappear, only to miraculously return with the Bourbon restoration? Your conclusions are laughable.

Lastly, wage labor did not exist as it did in capitalist countries. Not one bit. It had none of the characteristics of a capitalist wage labor system. Please see my post on the subject, because you're continuing to ignore it.

And what precisely is your point? If they were overthrown and deprived of the means of exploiting the peasantry in the period 1792-1815 that means that for the duration of that period they were ex-nobility, not recognised as nobility. This doesnt contradict anything I said about the capitalists being overthrown. If they continue to function as capitalists that means the means of exploiting wage labour are still at their disposal; if not, then they would no longer be capitalists but ex-capitalists. All very uncontroversial I would have thought

Wrong. They were recognized as nobility by other courts throughout Europe. Britain, Prussia, Austria and other nations all gave them sanctuary and recognition as the French nobility.

History proves you wrong once more.

Oh dear. Here we go again. More gratuitous insults to cover up a gaping hole in the argument. I repeat without the means to exploit the workers how can a capitalist continue to be a capitalist. This is absurd. I can hear old Charlie Marx chuckling in his beard all the way from Highgate cemetrary at such inanities. The person who once was a capitalist may certainly entertain thoughts of once again becoming a capitalist - that I dont deny. But entertaiining suich thoughts does not make one a capitalist does it now? You are way off beam here and I suspect you are probably beginning to realise this now (and regret that you have gone down this particular road)

If you make immature and naive arguments, expect to get called on it.

Yeah, I'm really regretting how I've cited examples supporting my position, while you've been repeating the same mechanicalist garbage that no serious Marxist agrees with. :lol:

"Ex capitalists" are capitalists in that they continue to promote the interests of the capitalist class. If someone continues to work to destroy socialism and reestablish the old order, they are part of that. You want to define them out of existence because it doesn't fit your ideas of what socialism should be.

What we're really getting down to here is the fact that you don't know what socialism is. You think the material conditions for communism exist at present, which is untrue; you think that the capitalist class will vanish into thin air as soon as they are expropriated, which is incredibly untrue; you think the class character of a state is irrelevant, which is flagrantly untrue. In short, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

But if what you said before just basically consists of childish ad hominens such as this then you dont give me or anyone else much encouragement to review it

The fact that you haven't adequately read what I've written means you're arguments are nonsense. That's the point, and evidently, you missed it.

Ah a breakthrough of sorts at last. Now you concede at long last that state property in the US is not owned by the people.

This is precisely why I call you childish, and this is precisely why I'm right.

I never once said US state property is owned by the people. Not once.

Next time, try not to lie so much, kid.

The next thing we need to get from you is some idea of who you think owns this state property if not the people. Someboidy owns it afterall so who? OK it may not be actually administered by capitalists but in whoses interests is it administered? The capitalists! You said it youself.

Your triumphalism is entertaining, but you're wrong on several points. First, the capitalists don't own it directly (or even indirectly in any reasonable sense), so really the government owns it, which is the answer to the question you yourself never answered. Second, the fact that the capitalist class controls it in its interests is exactly why the Soviet Union wasn't capitalist. The precondition upon which your assumption rests is that there must be a capitalist class in power. If not, then the conditions are completely different and capitalism is an impossibility. In the Soviet Union, there was no capitalist class, for there was no group of people who privately owned the means of production. The bureaucrats, the people you idiotically describe being capitalists, owned nothing, made no profit, employed no workers.

Thus, your argument is flawed even at this early stage.

So now we begin to see the difference between conventional westen capitalism and Soviet state capitalism. Those who adminster state property in the USSR are the actual capitalist class whereas those who administer nationalised concerns in the West do so on behalf of and in the interests of the capitalist class as a whole. It is in that sense that capitalist class exercise ultimate control over and de facto ownership over the nationalised means of production which you have agreed are not owned by the people. The difference in the case of the Soviet Union is that the capitalist class and those who administered the state machine and took all the important decisions were one and the same section of the population

:lol:

This is rich. So according to you, bureaucrats in the US, who are charged with the same tasks as bureaucrats in the Soviet Union, were NOT capitalist, whereas their counterparts in the USSR WERE capitalist? How is one bureaucrat capitalist and another not capitalist?

Aside from that contradiction, your argument has even more flaws here. You, again, imply that control equals capitalist ownership, which hasn't been substantiated at all (and it won't be, because it's an impossibility). Until you do substantiate this, you have nothing. So, you have nothing.

I prefer to ignore the same old ad hominen crap you come out with and stick to facts. The fact is, as I said time and time again (but you ignored time and time again), that it is not essential that individual bureaucrats directly employ wage labour for this to be a capitalist relation. It can be done instead through the state which represents the interests of the collective capitalist class as in the USSR. Individual capitalist exploitation is not neccessary to capitalism and this was noted by Marx long ago when he commented on the rise of the joint stock company.

You can ignore it all you like, it's true, and that's what matters.

It is essential that individual bureaucrats do not directly employ wage labor. Why? That's what a capitalist, by definition, does. Bourgeois society is based on this relationship, and as it didn't exist in the Soviet Union, it's ridiculous to call it bourgeois.

Are you actually comparing the USSR to a joint stock company? Did you once consider the fact that no bureaucrat owned any stocks or bonds? That's maybe the most ridiculous thing I've seen posted here for awhile.

If somebody else is reading this post please point out to this individual that my "continued denial of class conflict" is like most of what he has to say is the product of an over fertile imagination. What next am I going to be accused of I wonder. Saying that something was not a reference to class conflict can by no stretch of the imagination be considered tantamount to denying class conflict

You ignored class conflict when you talked of the material conditions for communism, you ignored class conflict when you denied the existence of capitalists during the dictatorship of the proletariat (if the workers weren't ruling over anyone, why would Marx call it a "dictatorship?), you ignored class conflict when you talked of nationalization as if it was the same in all countries in all epochs. So yes, you do ignore class conflict because you're not a Marxist.

Yes thats right. it means stop allowing yourself to be an exploited class. The fact that you sneer at such a sentiment speaks volumes. We know now pretty well which side of the class struggle you support and it aint the side of the workers thats for sure

Yeah, 'cause the dictatorship of the proletariat isn't supposed to have proletarians involved in any way. Good thinking there. :rolleyes:

The point is that workers continue to be workers after the revolution. The whole point of Marxism is to have working-class state power. You shouldn't be too offended, however, because you are an anarchist after all.

JimmyJazz

22nd February 2009, 23:36

What you would be referring to is the distinction between lower and higher phases of socialism/communism.

According to the Leninist conception, yeah. But isn't it true that they called the lower phase "socialism" and the higher phase "communism"? That seems consistent with how I was using it...in fact that's one of the main reasons I use it like I do. Because they conceived of the higher phase ("communism") as a moneyless, free access economic system.

I use it in the same sense that Marx used it, that is, a synonym for socialism.

Didn't Engels say something like, "at that time, we could hardly have called it the Socialist Manifesto, as socialism was already a respectable, middle class current of thought"? (I can't find the quote online, and I'm too lazy to dig out the book where I read it, but it's in his little 20 questions and answers on communism article).

punisa

22nd February 2009, 23:46

Anyone who has the slightist inkling of communism will know roughly what it means. It relates to a future society in which there will be no state, no money, no working for wages, no class divisions. People will voluntarily contribute according to their abilities and and freely take from the common stores. Such a society has never yet been seriously attempted and the preconditions for establishing it are basically 1) mass understanding and support for communism 2) a sufficiently developed technological infrastructure to satisfy our reasonable needs. The later precondition was arguably met sometimes around the start of the last century; we are still only a tiny way towards meeting the first precondition however.

So here is my point. There are people on this site who call themselves "communists" but when you put the idea of communist society to them they dismiss the idea as "absurd" , "unrealistic" "utopian" and more besides. Their attitude towards communism is frankly no different that what you would expect to meet from a die-hard pro-market right winger . So why do they maintain the pretence that they are communists?

They are simply not interested in communism and it tells. Some of these people are evidently in sympathy with the erstwhile state capitalist (misnamed "communist") regimes of Eastern Europe and the USSR. I actually think their views are more akin to a nationalist perpective but that is besides the point. The point is if you are not interested in communism then stop calling yourself a communist. Call yourself a left winger or whatever takes your fancy but communist you are not.

I will be charitable. Some of these pseudo communists may say "I still like the idea of communism but now is not the time to be talking about communism, there are much more pressing matters to attend to". I am baffled by this argument. What is being suggested here? THat we must wait until such time as we have alleviated the problems that capitalism throws up before we can turn our attention towards establishing communism? But this is a daft argument. It assumes that capitalism can be humanised and run in the interest of the workers when all the evidence says it cannot. BUt let us say for the sake of argument that I am wrong . Let us say that capitalism can iron out its wrinkles. Well, then, if that is the case what is the point of communism? The point of communism, surely is that capitalism cannot be run in the interests of workers and that once we understand this we will be able to see through the sheer fallacy of the argument that manitains that "in the meantime we have more pressing things to do than advocate communism".

Communism has as a precondition of its establishment , the necessity for a majority of workers to want and understand a communist alternative. That requires conscious advocacy - spreading ideas - among other things.

People who are too embarrassed to talk about communism for fear of being ridiculed as utopian idealists - did Marx and Engels think that when they called for the communistic "abolition of buying and selling" in the Manifesto - really ought not to be calling themselves communists either - anymore than those who feel the whole idea of communism is somehow "absurd"

Excellent topic comrade, my congratulations!
Let me try to give my view on the subject.
The fact that many proclaim themselves as communists means nothing actually.
As you travel, learn and meet new people you'll usually see that many love to associate themselves with "something". You have religious folks, die-hard soccer fans, rockers, skinheads, hippies, moralists, conservatives and yes - communists.
But as you figured, many of them either don't understand their association or, even worse, dismiss it once questioned about it.

Let us take anarchism for a moment, I see kids running with spray cans around the town writing the circled A on walls etc and calling themselves the "Anarchists".
If you had a hypothetical chance to talk 1-on-1 with them, do you think all of them are aware of the works of lets say William Godwin, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon or even Murray Rothbard? Not very luckily ...

But hey, its a "free" country and everyone has the right to call themselves what they will, which doesn't mean that they ARE.

As to why is that happening particularly for Communism, for one I'd say that communism has a very good propaganda. Yes, although many of us wine about the fact that our messages are not reaching enough people. In fact many young people actually do find certain strong relationship with the communist imagery, take the well know Soviet drawings, the might "oversized" worker crushing everything under his feet. The Che Guevara T-shirts, the sole idea "changing the history upside down" is also a powerful image that some will easily embrace.

Then you have the atheism, becoming a communist means that you also denounce any chances that you will prolong your life into afterlife. In other words, as a communist you spit in death's face and say - "I take it !"
Believe it or not, this also attracts certain people...

And if view communism from a broader perspective, not just as the economical model, many will relate to it as tangible form of a humanist idea. Many communist/socialist authors and thinkers acknowledged that one can not be a communist if he doesn't have the "love" or a humane feeling for the fellow human being - never to take into account his ethnicity, colour of the skin etc.

This is just a tiny pool of examples that I personally know that made some people become communists in the first place.

Many of you will say that this is good, people are associated with some strong rightful and above all humane ideas, that's not bad is it?
Well its not actually, BUT you must take into account that these people are not yet fully educated on all areas for which communism stands.
And who could blame them?
They have shown full interest, they have proclaimed themselves this way and majority of them want to know more. It is down to people that are knowledgeable to enhance their knowledge.

This is why this community is so great, despite several outcasts, majority of people will gladly answer all, even absurd, questions posted in the Learning section. Heck, I've learned at least 50% of all I know about communism from here :)

Why do they denounce it as utopian then? I don't think they really denounce it, they are just not very optimistic about it happening in their lifetime. But I'm sure the majority would be willing to fight for it if the circumstances changed.
Another reason for this is the mighty propaganda that's shaping our minds since the day that we are born. It makes us think that there are things in life that are "common sense" !
Every country has homeless,
some diseases cant be cured,
war is unavoidable,
if you loan money you gotta pay interest,
some people are born murderers and criminals,
politicians and rulers are smarter and more competent then us, thus they rule.

When people learned their whole lives that these and similar statements are actually FACTS and COMMONS SENSE, they will have a very hard time denouncing them.

If you ever read Samuel Khun, you'll remember the talk about shifting the paradigm and more often not !
When your whole earthly existence you were constantly dealing with money - how to denounce it overnight? Very hard..

Ok, my post has by now officially got that "too lengthy, skip it" size, but let me mention just one more thing.

21 century communists have a very hard time in looking up to and thus their debates with non-communists usually fail. As we know, majority of the socialist states collapsed, and those left do not look very peachy.
They will be confronted with Stalin and his purges, they will be told that Castro lives in king like mansion, they will be told that Marx was full of shit etc.

On the left side of the spectrum, communism is stalling, the whole left seems very divided sometimes. If every fraction had the same goal then maybe the road would be easier,but usually the debates over how to reach communism and what communism should look like take for years, even decades.

So its perfectly normal for a realist to imagine his revolutionary path 20 years from know stuck at the same point he started, debating over which one was right, Trotsky or Stalin or maybe Tito? :lol:

IF he is a complete realist, he'll have a hard time.
On a personal note, I believe you must be at least a little bit utopian/idealist to understand the true meaning of communism. The mission should be broad, communism should not be viewed as "just" the overthrow of capitalism or abolishing of money. Its the greatest idea in the human existence ! And reasons are many.
Being a part of that will surely, in time, make those "Communists" who are not Communists - Communists :)

ZeroNowhere

23rd February 2009, 08:30

Yeah, that's right, "workers of the world, unite!" really meant "workers of the world, stop being workers!"
Yes, it did. Or "Workers of the world, unite to stop being workers," more accurately. At least, as long as we're taking 'workers' to mean the working class rather than something as broad as 'people who work'.

According to the Leninist conception, yeah. But isn't it true that they called the lower phase "socialism" and the higher phase "communism"? That seems consistent with how I was using it...in fact that's one of the main reasons I use it like I do. Because they conceived of the higher phase ("communism") as a moneyless, free access economic system.
Well, I'm not a Leninist. And who knows what the hell Leninists use 'socialism' to mean? It varies by the Leninist. Though generally they seem to use it to refer to some 'transitional stage' to socialism, rather than as just a lower phase of socialism.

Didn't Engels say something like, "at that time, we could hardly have called it the Socialist Manifesto, as socialism was already a respectable, middle class current of thought"? (I can't find the quote online, and I'm too lazy to dig out the book where I read it, but it's in his little 20 questions and answers on communism article).
"When it [the Manifesto] appeared, we could not have called it a socialist manifesto. Two kinds of people were regarded as socialists in 1847. On the one hand were the followers of the various Utopian systems, especially the Owenites in England and the Fourierists in France, both of which at that time had dwindled to mere sects that were already dying out. On the other hand were the numerous social quacks who, with their various panaceas and every type of patchwork, wanted to do away with social evils without, in the slightest, harming capital and profit. In both cases they were people outside the labor movement and looked far more for support from the 'educated' classes.

"On the other hand, that part of the working class which was convinced of the inadequacy of a mere political revolution and demanded a fundamental transformation of society -- that part at the time called itself communist.... In 1847 socialism signified a bourgeois movement and communism a working-class movement. Socialism, at least on the Continent, was respectable enough for the drawing room; communism was the exact opposite. Since we were already then definitely of the opinion that 'the emancipation of the workers had to be the task of the working class itself,' we could not for one moment be in doubt as to which of the two names to choose. Nor has it ever occurred to us to renounce it since then." Subsequently, as the utopian socialists faded into oblivion and were largely forgotten, M+E generally preferred to use the term "socialism" in their writings.

robbo203

23rd February 2009, 10:23

quote=manic expression;1366183]No, "we" haven't. More importantly, the facts show otherwise: there was a state monopoly on your so-called "market"..[/quote]

There is a limit to how far one can usefully engage in discussion with someone who flatly denies that goods and services were bought and sold in the Soviet Union. This is indicative of a state off denial so deep as to be bordering on the surreal. When I was in the Soviet Union, I distinctly remember having to pay to use the Moscow metro, my meals in a restuarant, the hotel bill etc etc. I even recall fellow workers in Russia exchanging something that looked uncannily like money for the goods that they bought..er.. acquired. But - no! no! no! - this was all a figment of imagination. I must have been duped by reactionary revisionist bourgeois propaganda. I never saw these things. I never saw what looked remarkably like a market transaction going on. I offer my my body, my soul, my entire being , for the purposes of soviet rehabilitation, comrade...

You just said Lenin was openly promoting "state capitalism", which is just untrue."..

Really? So are you denying that Lenin said in 1918 that reality rells us that state capitalism would be a step forward for us compared to the present stae of affairs. What is that if not promoting state capitalism, eh? And what about this juciy little quote for all you Lenin worshippers to suck on - A letter to D I Kursky 1922
"The fighting role of the P.C.J. is equally important in the sphere of NEP, and here the P.C.J.’s weakness and apathy is even more outrageous. There is no evidence of any understanding of the fact that we recognise and will continue to recognise only state capitalism, and it is we — we conscious workers, we Communists — who are the state. That is why we should brand as good-for-nothing Communists those who have failed to understand their task of restricting, curbing, checking and catching red-handed and inflicting exemplary chastisement on any kind of capitalism that goes beyond the framework of state capitalism in our meaning of the concept and tasks of the state."

I dont have time to deal with the rest of the drivel you come out with. For that you will have to wait till next week, Im off up them hills yonder for a spot of wage slavery. Have a happy time in cyberspace

mikelepore

23rd February 2009, 12:13

Rather it refers to the full and true equality that will be possible under communism, and which is the only true equality. So, for example men and women are equal as human beings, but unequal physically. Let's say a man needs a few more ounces of food a day to be healthy. Well paying a man and a woman the same money for doing the same work is not then 'equality' since the man needs more money to be healthy. That's probably not a very wise example of me to draw! But you get the idea. Every person is different, some are heavier, some are weaker, some are faster. Why should someone be discriminated against because of their defects? All should receive the same remuneration for their same effort, even if the effects of the same effort differ from one person to another.

I think those considerations are handled adequately by what Marx called "the first phase of communist society", that is, immediately after the workers seize the means of production, and people haven't yet seen what society may eventually develop into. Those issues are already handled because working two hours today will get you a store credit for material consumption that is twice the amount of that credit given to the person who works one hour today. It's not to be modified according to who is faster or slower, stronger or weaker. I would argue that greater consumption credit should be given to those who will perform the types of work that are the most uncomfortable, dangerous, etc., but that there shouldn't be a difference in compensation due to intrinsic abilities.

Secondly, yes, your right that the slogan also has overtones about a new society being needed for us to have true equality, and I neglected to discuss those aspects in my previous post. However, my intent was just to address one interpretation of "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." I was addressing those who say that the first half of the sentence, before the comma, means that work should only be something that people will volunteer for without pay, because socialism will supposedly make work become fun, and that the second half of the sentence, after the comma, means that all the stuff in the store should be free, and there should be no price tags on any of it. Because I was answering a particular interpretation of what the slogan means, my post was limited also.

mikelepore

23rd February 2009, 13:43

Im puzzled by this claim. It is true that socialism entails and indeed must entail an element of altruism - a regard for the welfare of others - but no socialist I know would think that that is all it entails. All would say it involves an element of self interest as well - enlightened self interest if you like. I mean what exactly are you suggesting here? That the establishment of socialism/ communism should not be associated with altruism in any shape or form ?

There will be many roles for altruism in a socialist world, in such things as protecting the clean air and water for future generations, choosing good educational methods, establishing the best medical research facilities of which we are capable.

But I don't think altruism can be part of the process of an individual saying to oneself: "I could go on vacation as often as I wish, without any repercussions, but I will go back to work this week because I know intellectually that the work needs to be done."

It's not known to be a reliable method for a society to rely on. It would be like putting passengers into a newly invented aircraft that has never been tested, and testing it for the first time by pushing them off a cliff.

But as I have pointed out elsewhwere it is precisely that kind of assertion that plays into the hands of critics of socialism who uncritically level the human nature argument at socialism (the notion that people are intrinsically uncooperative, greedy , lazy and so on on). If you are purely driven by self interested motives why bother with socialism? Why not just go out and get what you can from capitalism. Become a capitalist if you will.

First of all, human nature isn't a species characteristic -- it's an individual characteristic. There is such a thing as human nature, but it's different for each individual. Some of us are lazy and greedy, and some of us aren't. Some of us are murderers and rapists, and some of us aren't. Each such category is a statistical distribution, where the histogram has outliers on the left tail, a hump around the mean or median, and more outliers on the right tail. When we go into the new classless society, the statistical distribution will probably shift sideways toward the "altruistic" direction. After the mean shifts, there will still be outliers on both sides. It's not that a classless society won't have any lazy or greeedy people at all, it's not that a classless society won't have any murderers or rapists at all, but that we expect there to be significantly fewer of them. There will be fewer because the mean has moved, and the lower tail of the distribution has to move along with it.

What weakens the socialist case, and plays into the hands of the critics, is when socialists offer a plan that can only work to any extent at all depending on certain changes in those behavioral areas. We need a kind of socialism where we can see in advance exactly why it will operate just as well no matter how many unpleasant characters there may be.

If we have "free access to all that is produced" in the literal sense, just one person (perhaps a disgruntled former capitalist) could break the system completely. A single loony person who says, "Okay, give me a thousand tons of diamonds" would thereby require the entire rest of society to begin working day and night to try to deliver that unreasonable request. But with the proposed system of so-called labor time vouchers or labor credits, no one can do anything to break it. If some nut, er -- some statistical maverick point -- goes into the store and says give me a thousand tons of diamonds, the computer screen simply displays: "There is an insufficient balance in your account. Operation cancelled."

I think your comments on the origin of the expression from each according to ability to each according to needs are speculative at best.

I plead "no contest" to that charge. Perhaps I "explained" how I believe something came about without offering the historical research that I would need to back it up.

Whatever the case may be this idea neverthless expresses the very essence of genuine communism/socialism - free access and voluntary labour - and I would deny that Marx was not serious about this. It is implicit in huge chunks of his writings. Much of what he wrote about alienation, for example, would be quite meaningless without some notion of communism as a social destination for humankind.

The older Marx himself didn't think too highly of the 26-year-old Marx (the Paris manuscripts, the "alienation" years). I think we treasure those notebooks more than the author himself did.

Those comments in Marx's manuscripts about money being that which inverts human relationships -- "he who can buy bravery is brave, even if he is a coward" -- he was clearly talking about the class divided society that we know. He wasn't talking about what kind of money-substitute, if any, a classless society of the future might need to use.

But still, let's take the idea of that wonderful destination ahead, we are only in our prehistory, humanity greatest achievements are yet to be. Still, there's no way to answer a specific question about it. We can't cite that to answer with rigor the question about whether people will volunteer to perform work without getting paid for it.

You seem to be saying is no scientific evidence to warrant that "From each according to ability to each according to need " could work. It depends what you mean by "scientific evidence". There is plenty of evidence that human beings are capable of living in a huge variery of different types of societies. There is the evidence that most of our existence on this planet has been under a system of what is loosely called primitive communism.

Primitive communism didn't reply on the kinds of specialization that technology requires. Primitive communism often had a division of labor where, for example, the women were grinding the flour while the men were chasing the buffalos, etc., but the variety of activities was different than in the age of complex machines. The diversions weren't there either. Now you have to motivate the worker to come home from the amusement parks of the world and go back into to the steel mill.

Primitive communism was also based on extended families and personal friendships. The behavioral codes that apply to it can't be applied to the "global village" where everyone's "famous for fifteen minutes." I don't even know the names or recognize the faces of most people who live on my road. The fact that I don't want to disappoint Grandma is no longer enough to get me to go to work.

I would add that that in the field of evolutionary psychology in which the notion of group selection is coming back into favour, there is also evidence that morality may be a group adaption - a claim that goes back to Darwin himself - and that this has important consequences for the notion of communism as a kind of moral economy - a generalised gift economy

I think that's all the more reason to be careful about what kind of human behaviors we reward and thereby increase in frequency. If people aren't "lazy and greedy" by nature, but if, when some of them choose tomorrow to behave in a lazy and greedy ways, then we reward them for it by saying "enjoy yourself! bon voyage!", then it's the material system itself that would be casting the mold.