Distinction between socialism and communism

[ZeroNowhere]

If he did, he would have known the difference between socialism and communism.
No, that would just be if he had read Lenin. The other two didn't make the distinction.


A person I know who ranted quite frequently about foreigners being of a lower class, that property is holy, that anyone who gets welfare is a bloodsucking leech who takes away his hard-earned tax money, etc. recommended me to watch the Zeitgeist documentary.
Well, yes, the first one was, IIRC, a load of crap with Ron Paul worship attached. Addendum was somewhat surprising, since it seems to have marked a departure with the first film, and hopefully this kind of thing gets further refined soon enough.

[Led Zeppelin]

No, that would just be if he had read Lenin. The other two didn't make the distinction.

Ah, I remember you made a post about this a while back claiming that Marx and Engels didn't actually make a distinction between the lower phase of a communist society and the higher phase of it.

Of course both of them did and there are quotes proving it, but I believe you argued that they only wrote it once in an unpublished work and therefore it doesn't count?

Well, The Principles of Communism was a published work by Engels, and he mentions it there:


Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?

No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society.

In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm)

This is the exact same sentiment expressed by Marx in his Critique of the Gotha Program, which I'm sure you know of:


What we have to deal with here [in analyzing the programme of the workers' party] 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 comes...

[...]

... 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.

[...]

But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged, after prolonged birth pangs, from capitalist society. Law can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s3)

Now, I don't really care that Marx and Engels said it. That in itself is obviously not proof of it being true. However, their arguments for it are quite good. Law can never be higher than the economic structure of society, and capitalist society does not create the economic structure of a stateless communist society, so that specific economic structure has to be built.

When is that structure built? In a transitional period, or as Marx called it, the lower phase of communism.

Unless you believe that capitalism will leave the material conditions of the world as a whole ready for a fully communist society to replace it at once.

I personally don't believe that's the case.

I don't want to derail this thread though, but I also don't want to stifle this discussion between us, so I'll split these posts to a new thread in Theory if you don't mind. :)

[Pogue]

Ah, I remember you made a post about this a while back claiming that Marx and Engels didn't actually make a distinction between the lower phase of a communist society and the higher phase of it.

Of course both of them did and there are quotes proving it, but I believe you argued that they only wrote it once in an unpublished work and therefore it doesn't count?

Well, The Principles of Communism was a published work by Engels, and he mentions it there:


Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm)

This is the exact same sentiment expressed by Marx in his Critique of the Gotha Program, which I'm sure you know of:


Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s3)

Now, I don't really care that Marx and Engels said something. That in itself is obviously not proof of it being true. However, their argument is quite good. Law can never be higher than the economic structure of society, and capitalist society does not create the economic structure of a stateless communist society, so that economic structure has to be built. When is that structure built? In a transitional period, or as Marx called it, the lower phase of communism.

Unless you believe that capitalism will leave the material conditions of the world as a whole "ready" for a "fully communist" society to replace it at once.

I don't personally don't believe that's the case.

I don't want to derail this thread though, but I also don't want to stifle this discussion between us, so I'll split these posts to a new thread in Theory if you don't mind. :)

I don't think anyone's denying there will be a transitionary stage, however I don't think the transitionary stage, be it during the revolution or after it depending on yuor ideological viewpoint, could be called socialism, because it creates false illusions of a society run by the workers and without capitalism and any of its problems of contradictions when in reality that is not the case.

[Led Zeppelin]

I don't think anyone's denying there will be a transitionary stage, however I don't think the transitionary stage, be it during the revolution or after it depending on yuor ideological viewpoint, could be called socialism, because it creates false illusions of a society run by the workers and without capitalism and any of its problems of contradictions when in reality that is not the case.

Actually if I recall correctly ZeroNowhere did deny there being any transitional stage (I apologize if that is not the case).

I don't see why you would have any problem with the type of transitional stage that I envision being called socialist though? I support a socialist society which is run by workers, is not capitalist, and has minimized contradictions as far as the current development of material conditions allows.

[Pogue]

Actually if I recall correctly ZeroNowhere did deny there being any transitional stage (I apologize if that is not the case).

I don't see why you would have any problem with the type of transitional stage that I envision being called socialist though? I support a socialist society which is run by workers, is not capitalist, and has minimized contradictions as far as the current development of material conditions allows.

I don't think a transitionary period should be consolidated basically, as in, within a state, as I believe that cuts short the revolution and creates a state beurecrat class.

I see the transitionary period as more something that will happen as part of a revolution, and thus the revolution wont be over until we're in the communist period. So I wouldn't call any transitionary period 'socialism' because its not going to be a clearly defined period, it'll just be the 'Whats in between capitalism and communism period', and we'll still be fighting.

I guess basically we're going to get into Anarchism versus Leninism here, but I think thats more what Zero is saying in regards to the absence of a transitionary period, and its basically the key difference between libertarian/left communism and the Leninist ideologies of Marx-Leninism, Trotskyism etc.

[Led Zeppelin]

I don't think a transitionary period should be consolidated basically, as in, within a state, as I believe that cuts short the revolution and creates a state beurecrat class.

I see the transitionary period as more something that will happen as part of a revolution, and thus the revolution wont be over until we're in the communist period. So I wouldn't call any transitionary period 'socialism' because its not going to be a clearly defined period, it'll just be the 'Whats in between capitalism and communism period', and we'll still be fighting.

I guess basically we're going to get into Anarchism versus Leninism here, but I think thats more what Zero is saying in regards to the absence of a transitionary period, and its basically the key difference between libertarian/left communism and the Leninist ideologies of Marx-Leninism, Trotskyism etc.

Actually I almost entirely agree with you here.

I also believe that a communist revolution is not an end in itself, but merely a step in the right direction. A post-revolutionary society cannot simply "lay back", so to speak, and wait for the revolution to spread to other countries. We've seen what happens when the waiting lasts too long with the Russian experience.

I believe in a permanent revolution (to use Trotsky's phrase ;)) without which I don't believe we could complete it, that is, arrive at a communist society.

As for how the transitional period will look. I don't believe that any type of state structure will be bad or will result in a bureaucratic take-over. A highly centralized, undemocratic, one-party ruled state certainly will. But what about a decentralized, democratic, multi-party/tendency state? Such a state would not be a state "in the proper sense of the term", in my opinion.

It is of course very difficult to arrive at that ideal when you are in the middle of a civil war, and economic depression is ravaging the country. I understand why the Soviets had to resort to the methods they resorted to. I also understand why they were forced to resort to those methods (the failure of the German revolution and the betrayal of the reformists there).

I don't support repeating mistakes though. I actually believe that anarchists and Marxists can function quite well in a democratic system. I'm sure both will agree that a state which is not one in the proper sense of the term, is worth participating in for the benefit of the revolution.

Anarchists have shown that they are willing to participate in such progressive endeavours when the time calls for it, both during the Russian revolution as well as during the Spanish revolution (though I believe in the latter case it was a rather ill-informed decision). I hope that they will do so again in the future. :)

[Pogue]

Actually I almost entirely agree with you here.

I also believe that a communist revolution is not an end in itself, but merely a step in the right direction. A post-revolutionary society cannot simply "lay back", so to speak, and wait for the revolution to spread to other countries. We've seen what happens when the waiting lasts too long with the Russian experience.

I believe in a permanent revolution (to use Trotsky's phrase ;)) without which I don't believe we could complete it, that is, arrive at a communist society.

As for how the transitional period will look. I don't believe that any type of state structure will be bad or will result in a bureaucratic take-over. A highly centralized, undemocratic, one-party ruled state certainly will. But what about a decentralized, democratic, multi-party/tendency state? Such a state would not be a state "in the proper sense of the term", in my opinion.

It is of course very difficult to arrive at that ideal when you are in the middle of a civil war, and economic depression is ravaging the country. I understand why the Soviets had to resort to the methods they resorted to. I also understand why they were forced to resort to those methods (the failure of the German revolution and the betrayal of the reformists there).

I don't support repeating mistakes though. I actually believe that anarchists and Marxists can function quite well in a democratic system. I'm sure both will agree that a state which is not one in the proper sense of the term, is worth participating in for the benefit of the revolution.

Anarchists have shown that they are willing to participate in such progressive endeavours when the time calls for it, both during the Russian revolution as well as during the Spanish revolution (though I believe in the latter case it was a rather ill-informed decision). I hope that they will do so again in the future. :)

Yeh of course. I mean, what is actually considered a 'state' is not what the issue is of such. Anarchists, for the transitionary period, would advocate a decentralised, federal system of local workers/community councils who would have delegates going up in an bottom-up structure. Any centralised body (and it would be neccesary) would thus have all its power from the bottom, would be decentralised, etc. You could argue its a 'state' because its going to be what administers things. But its run by the people and it doesn't create a permanent class of politicians, as they are recallable, rotated and on the same pay/conditions as everyone else.

I don't see why such a system would be something any revolutionary leftist owuld object too. You could judge it on its merits. I wouldn't not participate in such a form of social organisation just because it was called a 'Workers state' and was maden by Trotskyists if I could see it really was worker run and democratic. Which is why I don't see my politics being that different from those of a genuine Trotskyist, aside from the fact I don't want a vanguard led revolution because I think thats what creates the permanent, beruecratic state, and also that I'd consider that federal organisation the means by which we fight capitalism and the bourgeois reaction to our revolution, as opposed to being a new stage of society or accomplishment in its own right, as you said. My only fear is that if we begin to hold ideas of a 'socialist state', we'll consider it a victory if we place a new group of leaders in place of the old ones. But I don't think genuine Trotskyists (and Marxist-Leninists in some cases) want that, I just think that theres a real danger of it happening.

[davidasearles]

How much agreement as to what the "upper stage of communism" will look like, or what the period between worker control of the industrial means of production/distribution and upper communism should be referred to do we have to have before we concentrate to some discernible degree on obtaining collective worker control?

(And of course I am assuming that the few of us who consciously desire collective worker control are going to need a significant part of entire population to agree that collective worker control would be a good thing before collective worker control is going to come about.)

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'm sure both will agree that a state which is not one in the proper sense of the term, is worth participating in for the benefit of the revolution.

Anarchists have shown that they are willing to participate in such progressive endeavours when the time calls for it, both during the Russian revolution as well as during the Spanish revolution (though I believe in the latter case it was a rather ill-informed decision). I hope that they will do so again in the future. :)

So why not replace the word "state" with Gemeinwesen, or "commonwealth" (as Marx himself suggested at the expense of the word "commune")?

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Ah, I remember you made a post about this a while back claiming that Marx and Engels didn't actually make a distinction between the lower phase of a communist society and the higher phase of it.

He's not arguing that, he's arguing that Marx used the words communism and socialism interchangeably to describe both of those.


When is that structure built? In a transitional period, or as Marx called it, the lower phase of communism.The transitional period is the DotP:


Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. If you were correct we'd end up with the DOTP turning into itself.

[ZeroNowhere]

I was quite clearly referring to the terms 'socialism' and 'communism'. I never claimed that Marx and Engels didn't make a distinction between the higher and lower phases of socialism. Though I'm not entirely sure how the lower phase is somehow a 'transitional society': It's still classless, the only major difference is the use of labour credits.


He's not arguing that, he's arguing that Marx used the words communism and socialism interchangeably to describe both of those.
Merci.


Well, The Principles of Communism was a published work by Engels, and he mentions it there:
As was this: "History has proved us wrong, and all who thought like us. It has made it clear that the state of economic development on the Continent at that time was not, by a long way, ripe for the elimination of capitalist production; it has proved this by the economic revolution which, since 1848, has seized the whole of the Continent, and has caused big industry to take real root in France, Austria, Hungary, Poland and, recently, in Russia, while it has made Germany positively an industrial country of the first rank — all on a capitalist basis, which in the year 1848, therefore, still had a great capacity for expansion. But it is precisely this industrial revolution which has everywhere produced clarity in class relations, has removed a number of intermediate forms handed down from the period of manufacture and in Eastern Europe even from guild handicraft, has created a genuine bourgeois and a genuine large-scale industrial proletariat and has pushed them into the foreground of social development."
His perspective there was that the low level of development at the time meant that the means of production wouldn't be sufficient at the time of revolution, and would thus have to increase until capitalism could be abolished.


When is that structure built? In a transitional period, or as Marx called it, the lower phase of communism.

Unless you believe that capitalism will leave the material conditions of the world as a whole ready for a fully communist society to replace it at once.
The lower phase of communism is fully communist, that's why it's called the lower phase of communism.


So why not replace the word "state" with Gemeinwesen, or "commonwealth" (as Marx himself suggested at the expense of the word "commune")?
Um, wasn't that Engels?

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/letters/75_03_18.htm


We would therefore suggest that Gemeinwesen be universally substituted for state; it is a good old German word that can very well do service for the French "Commune".

Methinks Marx suggested it to Engels before the latter wrote his letter. ;)

[Led Zeppelin]

I was quite clearly referring to the terms 'socialism' and 'communism'. I never claimed that Marx and Engels didn't make a distinction between the higher and lower phases of socialism. Though I'm not entirely sure how the lower phase is somehow a 'transitional society': It's still classless, the only major difference is the use of labour credits.

Sorry for the late reply.

How did Marx and Engels consider the first phase of a communist society to be classless when they clearly said the opposite, for example:


What we have to deal with here [in analyzing the programme of the workers' party] 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 comes...

[...]

... 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.

[...]

But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged, after prolonged birth pangs, from capitalist society. Law can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.
Link (http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm)

Now, mind you, when Marx says something like this he has a good reason for it. Engels said the same based on the same reason as Marx. Why will there still be inequality in a post-revolutionary society?

Because, in Engels' words: "In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity."

Do you believe that inequality in a society as Marx described above is not the same as a form of class-society? Is it a class-society Lite version?

Whatever it is, it's certainly not a classless society of the higher phase of communism type, and I don't believe the only difference between the lower and higher phases are the use of labor credits. Marx and Engels didn't either from reading the above.


As was this: "History has proved us wrong, and all who thought like us. It has made it clear that the state of economic development on the Continent at that time was not, by a long way, ripe for the elimination of capitalist production; it has proved this by the economic revolution which, since 1848, has seized the whole of the Continent, and has caused big industry to take real root in France, Austria, Hungary, Poland and, recently, in Russia, while it has made Germany positively an industrial country of the first rank — all on a capitalist basis, which in the year 1848, therefore, still had a great capacity for expansion. But it is precisely this industrial revolution which has everywhere produced clarity in class relations, has removed a number of intermediate forms handed down from the period of manufacture and in Eastern Europe even from guild handicraft, has created a genuine bourgeois and a genuine large-scale industrial proletariat and has pushed them into the foreground of social development."
His perspective there was that the low level of development at the time meant that the means of production wouldn't be sufficient at the time of revolution, and would thus have to increase until capitalism could be abolished.

All he's saying is that they were wrong in believing that the revolutionary wave of 1848 could bring about socialism, i.e., the first phase of communism as he described above, because the material conditions weren't ripe for it.

That doesn't equal him saying that the material conditions would be prepared by capitalism to usher in a classless society right after a socialist revolution. Nor is he saying that the increase of means of production to the point of abolishing capitalism equals the creation of a classless society, i.e., a society of the higher phase of communism type.

That wouldn't really make sense unless you believe that capitalism can eliminate scarcity, and a revolution can only occur when that has happened. I disagree with that; I believe capitalism has - in most countries - already prepared the material conditions for a socialist revolution. However, what comes after it is different matter altogether. It will require generations upon generations (and the spread of the revolution to the world as a whole) before class-society and all the "old crap" that comes with it are withered away and abolished through the development of the material conditions.

For this reason it is important to make a distinction between the two phases. Either you believe material conditions aren't sufficient for an immediate abolishment of class-society, or you believe they are. With both come a great deal of consequences theoretically. You can't believe that the material conditions are sufficient, while believing that capitalism won't prepare that sufficient level of development (elimination of scarcity and want). Similarly, you can't believe that the material conditions are not sufficient while believing that a classless society can be formed right after a social revolution, since class-society is based on the development of material conditions at any given time. In Marx's words; "Law can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby".


The lower phase of communism is fully communist, that's why it's called the lower phase of communism.

If it was "fully" communist, there would be no distinction made between two phases. Anyway, I have already quoted Marx and Engels where they explain the difference between the two phases. One key difference is that the lower phase still contains remnants of economic inequality, and is therefore still a form of class-society. It is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it comes.

Unless you believe that capitalism will eliminate scarcity for us and thereby make it possible for us to go right to a classless society, which would be pretty hard to believe, your argument doesn't make sense. For example, you believe that the only major distinction between the two phases is the use of labor credits. You probably believe this because of the material conditions issue I elaborated on above; you acknowledge that they are not sufficient post-revolution to go straight to a society which doesn't use labor-credits. That is good, but why do you then believe that we can go straight to a society which is free of classes and economic inequality? Is not the basis of economic inequality, the basis of classes, the lack of development of material conditions?

If you acknowledge that the material conditions aren't sufficiently developed to not use labor-credits, why do you not acknowledge that they are not sufficiently developed to get rid of economic inequality and withering forms of classes?

[ZeroNowhere]

Wow, this thread just popped up out of nowhere.
Anyways.


... 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.
Yes, that's not class. Still, you should realize that much. Though I am curious, how does unequal income mean that there is a class that expropriates surplus labour from a lower class? After all, Marx specifies that this is, "the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production." So where does class come into this? Also, the description that I just quoted does seem to contrast strongly with Engels' statement that you claimed to represent the same view. Anyways, being a lazy git, I'll just quote Paresh Chattopadhyay's summary of this section.

In the "first phase" of the new society the right of the individual producers to receive consumption goods proportional to the labour contributed by them (after necessary deductions) is an "equal right" in the sense that the measurement involved is done with an "equal standard," labour, though the equal right is, at the same time, "unequal," given the unequal contribution of the individual producers. In so far as a given amount of labour in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labour in another form, the principle here involved is the same as that which prevails under commodity production, even though commodity production has ceased to exist. Since the new society has just come out of the capitalist society and has not yet been able to "develop on its own foundations," the new mode of distribution cannot be completely free from the old mode. The determining principle of distribution among individuals continues to be each one's labour contribution, and not (yet) human needs, this equal-unequal right being thus still within the bourgeois horizon, it is a "bourgeois right." The latter is fully overcome only in a "higher phase" of the Association with the overcoming of the enslaving division of labour, with labour becoming a "first need" of life and with the "spring of cooperative wealth" flowing more abundantly.


"In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity."
"History has proved us wrong, and all who thought like us. It has made it clear that the state of economic development on the Continent at that time [1848] was not, by a long way, ripe for the elimination of capitalist production; it has proved this by the economic revolution which, since 1848, has seized the whole of the Continent, and has caused big industry to take real root in France, Austria, Hungary, Poland and, recently, in Russia, while it has made Germany positively an industrial country of the first rank — all on a capitalist basis, which in the year 1848, therefore, still had a great capacity for expansion. But it is precisely this industrial revolution which has everywhere produced clarity in class relations, has removed a number of intermediate forms handed down from the period of manufacture and in Eastern Europe even from guild handicraft, has created a genuine bourgeois and a genuine large-scale industrial proletariat and has pushed them into the foreground of social development. However, owing to this, the struggle between these two great classes, a struggle which, outside England, existed in 1848 only in Paris and, at the most, in a few big industrial centres, has spread over the whole of Europe and reached an intensity still inconceivable in 1848."
That is, his position was due to the fact that the productive forces and industry were in no way developed enough for socialism, and he later realized his mistake. Of course in 1848 there would have to be a period in which the means of production would have to be dramatically increased, it's 1848.


Do you believe that inequality in a society as Marx described above is not the same as a form of class-society? Is it a class-society Lite version?
Neither. I would be interested in why you see inequality of the amount drawn from the total social product to mean a class system, however.


If it was "fully" communist, there would be no distinction made between two phases.
Except that they're different phases of communism?
Though if you're referring to the fact that they wouldn't have mentioned it much, they didn't, and the Critique of the Gotha Program is probably the only place in which they make the distinction (or, if there are others, there are not many). I mean, Marx mentions the labour credit system in Capital, but doesn't discuss the higher phase of socialism in there.


Unless you believe that capitalism will eliminate scarcity for us and thereby make it possible for us to go right to a classless society, which would be pretty hard to believe, your argument doesn't make sense.
Unless you believe that class is based on income or something, I don't really see what your point is.


It is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it comes.
Sure, and therefore compensation for labor would be necessary. In fact, the very next sentence is, "Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it."

[Led Zeppelin]

Wow, this thread just popped up out of nowhere.

Yeah, sorry about that. I was busy with school so I didn't have the time to reply earlier.


Yes, that's not class. Still, you should realize that much. Though I am curious, how does unequal income mean that there is a class that expropriates surplus labour from a lower class? After all, Marx specifies that this is, "the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production." So where does class come into this?

Well, I didn't say it was a class in the same sense that we have classes today. In fact I specified that it would be quite different:

"Do you believe that inequality in a society as Marx described above is not the same as a form of class-society?"

"One key difference is that the lower phase still contains remnants of economic inequality, and is therefore still a form of class-society."

It seems as though we're mostly disagreeing on semantics here. Both of us agree that there is a quantifiable difference between the lower and higher phases of communism. Both of us agree that one of the difference between the two phases is economic inequality and the continuance of the existence of bourgeois law in distribution.

Where we seem to disagree is on whether we call the lower phase of communism classless or not. I say that it is still a form of class-society, and not entirely classless. I believe Marx also believed this, since he believed that the state arose out of existence of classes and the need to "regulate" them. Classes change in the lower phase of communism just as the state changes in the lower phase of communism, but both continue to exist, correct? They are no longer "classes in the proper sense of the term" or "the state in the proper sense of the term", but they are still there.

The reason they are still there is because the material conditions are not yet sufficiently developed for the higher phase of communism to exist:

"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.

Now, there are no other rules than those of "bourgeois law". To this extent, therefore, there still remains the need for a state, which, while safeguarding the common ownership of the means of production, would safeguard equality in labor and in the distribution of products.

The state withers away insofar as there are no longer any capitalists, any classes, and, consequently, no class can be suppressed.

But the state has not yet completely withered away, since the still remains the safeguarding of "bourgeois law", which sanctifies actual inequality. For the state to wither away completely, complete communism is necessary." Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm)


Also, the description that I just quoted does seem to contrast strongly with Engels' statement that you claimed to represent the same view.

It doesn't contrast to that at all. As I said, "That doesn't equal him saying that the material conditions would be prepared by capitalism to usher in a classless society right after a socialist revolution. Nor is he saying that the increase of means of production to the point of abolishing capitalism equals the creation of a classless society, i.e., a society of the higher phase of communism type."

We weren't really disagreeing on that point though. It was just a disagreement on semantics; with "classless society" I was referring to a classless society freed from all sort of classes and the "old crap" that comes along with it, i.e., a society of the higher phase of communism type.

We both agree that such a society comes after the lower phase of communism type of society, so there's no disagreement there.


Anyways, being a lazy git, I'll just quote Paresh Chattopadhyay's summary of this section.

I agree with that.


Neither. I would be interested in why you see inequality of the amount drawn from the total social product to mean a class system, however.

Because to maintain bourgeois law you have to maintain a type of state and type of distribution system which is inherited from class-society. Therefore such a society is a form of class-society, or it would be better to say, no longer a class-society in the proper sense of the term.


Except that they're different phases of communism?

Even though we're arguing semantics here; they are difference phases of communism, a higher and lower phase, so the lower phase cannot be "fully communist". There are quantifiable differences between the two, on which we both agree.


Though if you're referring to the fact that they wouldn't have mentioned it much, they didn't, and the Critique of the Gotha Program is probably the only place in which they make the distinction (or, if there are others, there are not many). I mean, Marx mentions the labour credit system in Capital, but doesn't discuss the higher phase of socialism in there.

They didn't mention it much because they didn't mention a post-revolutionary society much. They both disliked pointlessly mentally masturbating over future forms of society, which is why they never presented a blueprint for socialism or communism, or the lower and higher phases of communism. They only wrote very general phrases on it.

As I said before though I don't really care if they wrote about it a lot or not, because what matters is not that they wrote about it, but if what they wrote makes sense.

Since both of us seem to agree with their reasoning for making the distinction between the two phases, there doesn't seem to be a problem.

[ZeroNowhere]

It seems as though we're mostly disagreeing on semantics here. Both of us agree that there is a quantifiable difference between the lower and higher phases of communism. Both of us agree that one of the difference between the two phases is economic inequality and the continuance of the existence of bourgeois law in distribution.
Bourgeois right, not law. 'Bourgeois law' was a mistranslation.


I believe Marx also believed this, since he believed that the state arose out of existence of classes and the need to "regulate" them.
And he never said that this lower phase of socialism had a state. The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat takes place only during the revolutionary transformation of society, in which the expropriation of the expropriators necessitates the subjugation of the bourgeoisie to the proletariat. Surely in a society with common ownership of the means of production, there couldn't be a bourgeoisie anyways? Also, Marx said, "This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege." If everybody is 'only a worker like everyone else', then where does class come up?


Even though we're arguing semantics here; they are difference phases of communism, a higher and lower phase, so the lower phase cannot be "fully communist".
And why can't it be 'fully communist'? For that matter, how could a phase of communism not be 'fully communist'?


Because to maintain bourgeois law you have to maintain a type of state and type of distribution system which is inherited from class-society.
'Bourgeois law' is a mistranslation. As you would know if you had looked at the link you cited (which it seems you didn't quote from, seeing as you substituted in 'law' in the sentence, "Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.") It is a bourgeois right because it is an equal-unequal right, necessitated by the emergence of the socialist society from capitalism, Marx's statement in no way implies the existence of a state. The higher stage of socialism would mean the defects can be overcome through the application of an unequal right which allows unequal people to take according to their wants, rather than being measured by an equal standard and viewed solely as equal workers.

[Led Zeppelin]

Bourgeois right, not law. 'Bourgeois law' was a mistranslation.

That doesn't change the point at all. Bourgeois "right", just as "law", needs a special instrumentation to enforce. The right to be unequal is a right, and in order to be a right it needs to be a law, which is why Lenin said:

"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."

This seems to be a meaningless play on semantics on your part, unless you can elaborate on what the quantifiable difference is between enforcing bourgeois "right" and bourgeois "law" and how the argument proceeding from using the two terms interchangeable is wrong.


And he never said that this lower phase of socialism had a state. The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat takes place only during the revolutionary transformation of society, in which the expropriation of the expropriators necessitates the subjugation of the bourgeoisie to the proletariat. Surely in a society with common ownership of the means of production, there couldn't be a bourgeoisie anyways?

Here is the crux of the matter.

Firstly, obviously he did say that the lower phase of communism had a form of state (revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat) for the "revolutionary transformation of society" is part of the lower phase, one of the earliest stages of that lower phase I might add. You can't really detach that stage from socialism or the lower phase of communism, it is meaningless to do so.

Of course the lower phase of communism, socialism, is itself a relative concept: "And so, in the first phase of communist society (usually called Socialism) "bourgeois right" is not abolished in its entirety, but only in part, only in proportion to the economic revolution so far attained, i.e., only in respect of the means of production." Link (http://marx2mao.com/Lenin/SR17.html#c1)

As the "economic revolution" advances, the revolutionary dictatorship withers away. Notice how Engels used the expression "withers away" for the revolutionary dictatorship existing post-revolution, while he used the expression "abolish" for the bourgeois state existing pre-revolution. That is of course not to say that along with the development of the economic revolution as described above the role of the revolutionary dictatorship won't diminish strongly after the initial stages of the revolution:

"The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of society as a whole -- the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society -- is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then ceases of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not 'abolished,' it withers away." Link (http://marx2mao.com/Lenin/SR17.html#c1)


Also, Marx said, "This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege." If everybody is 'only a worker like everyone else', then where does class come up?

The paradox was written about by the likes of Lenin as well:

"In its first phase, or first stage, Communism cannot as yet be fully ripe economically and entirely free from traditions or traces of capitalism. Hence the interesting phenomenon that Communism in its first phase retains "the narrow horizon of bourgeois right."

[Notice how it wasn't a mistranslation here and Lenin uses the term "right" instead of "law", indicating that use of both words interchangeably has to bearing on the argument since in this context they have the same meaning, only presented in a different order, i.e., out of "right" comes forth "law".]

"Of course, bourgeois right in regard to the distribution of articles of consumption inevitably presupposes the existence of the bourgeois state, for right is nothing without an apparatus capable of enforcing the observance of the standards of right.

It follows that under Communism there remains for a time not only bourgeois right, but even the bourgeois state without the bourgeoisie!

This may sound like a paradox or simply a dialectical conundrum, of which Marxism is often accused by people who do not take the slightest trouble to study its extraordinarily profound content.

But as a matter of fact, remnants of the old surviving in the new confront us in life at every step, both in nature and in society. And Marx did not arbitrarily insert a scrap of "bourgeois" right into Communism, but indicated what is economically and politically inevitable in a society emerging out of the womb of capitalism." Link (http://marx2mao.com/Lenin/SR17.html#c5)

Now, of course what Lenin meant by "bourgeois state" is not to be taken literally. He later goes on to explain how this type of state is not really "a state in the proper sense of the term"...however it is still a state. Why then bother to argue this? Well, the theoretical arguments behind it are summaries in the last sentence.

Economically and politically you cannot simply abolish the bourgeois state-machinery overnight and not put anything in its place, since bourgeois right/law has to still be enforced for some time. Since society is still "in every respect, economically, morally and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges."

In conclusion; in a post-revolutionary society there are indeed no classes in the proper sense of the term, or a state in the proper sense of the term, but both still exist. In the case of classes, economic inequality still exists. Which is inevitable. In the case of the state, a machinery which enforces laws and rights still exists. Which is also inevitable. As the economic revolution advanced, both of these will become superfluous and "wither away".

You can choose to not refer to these as "classes" or "states", but it doesn't really change the underlying argument; a post-revolutionary society is not sufficiently developed in every respect intellectually, economically or morally to be a society of the fully communist type.


And why can't it be 'fully communist'? For that matter, how could a phase of communism not be 'fully communist'?

This a weird question. Perhaps this can be made clearer with an analogy.

Imagine an empty cup. As you pour water into it, the cup becomes filled with water. When you have filled the cup half-way, it is not already "full", it is only filled half-way. To say that the cup is already full at that time because there's water in it, is meaningless.

In the same way, to say that a society is "fully communist" when it's only partially there, is meaningless. In fact, there would be no point in making a distinction in phases ("lower" and "higher") if that were the case to begin with....

I'm sure you have some good reason for pursuing the discussion on this but I can't for the life of me understand what it is.


'Bourgeois law' is a mistranslation. As you would know if you had looked at the link you cited (which it seems you didn't quote from, seeing as you substituted in 'law' in the sentence, "Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.")

If your entire argument is based on what you call a mistranslation even though the other word is used later on and the use of both words indicate the same thing, you don't really have much to stand on.

As I said and explained more elaborately above; right is meaningless without law, and even if it wasn't, both would have to be enforced by a machinery so that doesn't have any bearing on the argument.


It is a bourgeois right because it is an equal-unequal right, necessitated by the emergence of the socialist society from capitalism, Marx's statement in no way implies the existence of a state.

No, not of "just a state" as you imagine it, but of a certain type of state, of a state "no longer such in the proper sense of the term".

Again, if this was not the case, Engels would not have talked about the withering away of this:

"The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of society as a whole -- the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society -- is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then ceases of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not 'abolished,' it withers away." Link (http://marx2mao.com/Lenin/SR17.html#c1)

When it has withered away, and "the state" (though no longer so 'in the proper sense of the term') becomes "the administrative".

A further elaboration on this by Engels:

"All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the authoritarian political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed." Link (http://marx2mao.com/Lenin/SR17.html#c1)

The "social conditions that gave birth to it"..., I don't think I need to explain what that refers to.

[ZeroNowhere]

I don't have much time now, so I'll get back to you on this. However, in the meantime:
Can you define a 'bourgeois state' (or, hell, a 'state' in general)?
Also, Marx says that to solve the defects, the right must be unequal rather than equal ("To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal"), but its existence as an equal-unequal right is inevitable in the initial stage of socialism. So, in this case, will there be a state in the higher stage of socialism to 'enforce' this unequal right? Or, hell, will there be no rules in the higher phase of socialism (I'm still not entirely sure how labour vouchers necessitate a state, though)?


In the case of classes, economic inequality still exists.
To prove the existence of the state, you must prove the existence of class rule. Where is there class rule? Also, what is it that makes the dictatorship of the proletariat revert to a bourgeois state (or, if we're to use Engels' suggested replacement for the word, a 'bourgeois commune')?


The "social conditions that gave birth to it"..., I don't think I need to explain what that refers to.
Class rule, yes. So what we need here is to find where it is that class rule exists here.


Firstly, obviously he did say that the lower phase of communism had a form of state (revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat)
Source? Also, are you now saying that common ownership of the means of production will be in place during the revolution, rather than the revolution involving the subjugation of the interests of the capitalist class (expropriation of the expropriators), hence the dictatorship of the proletariat in the first place? Also, Marx is quite clear that the dictatorship of the proletariat only exists while "other classes, especially the capitalist class" still exist. If everybody is a worker, where does class come into it?


Imagine an empty cup. As you pour water into it, the cup becomes filled with water. When you have filled the cup half-way, it is not already "full", it is only filled half-way. To say that the cup is already full at that time because there's water in it, is meaningless.

In the same way, to say that a society is "fully communist" when it's only partially there, is meaningless. In fact, there would be no point in making a distinction in phases ("lower" and "higher") if that were the case to begin with....
Light red and dark red are both red.
And anyways, if it's a class society, how is it in any way 'communist'?

Anyways, I suppose I'll add to this later, just throwing it out for now.

[Led Zeppelin]

This will probably be my last response in this thread because I really have to get back to studying for my central exams. I'll try to make it as extensive as possible though to avoid any unfinished arguments.



Can you define a 'bourgeois state' (or, hell, a 'state' in general)?

I could, but Engels would do a much better job:

"[a state] is a product of society at a certain stage of development; it is the admission that this society has become entangled in an insoluble contradiction with itself, that it has split into irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to dispel. But in order that these antagonisms, these classes with conflicting economic interests, might not consume themselves and society in fruitless struggle, it became necessary to have a power, seemingly standing above society, that would alleviate the conflict and keep it within the bounds of 'order'; and this power, arisen out of society but placing itself above it, and alienating itself more and more from it, is the state." Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch01.htm)

So, then, the state arose out of material necessity. The basis of the state is the material conditions of society. With the change in material conditions (referring to it as a totality), the state changes its form. Here come the feudal state, the bourgeois state, and the eventual dissolving of the state with the overthrow of the latter.

Since Marx and Engels recognize that the state arose out of material necessity, and since that material necessity still lingers on, so to speak, in a post-revolutionary society for some time, they concluded that even though the state would radically change in form (no longer state in the proper sense of the term[, proto-state, government of persons replaced by administration of things etc.) it would continue to exist in proportion to the economic revolution attained.

I think that you don't give sufficient attention to the economic, material, question, which is why you misunderstand what I'm saying and also seem to misunderstand the position of Marx and Engels on this. Yes, Marx and Engels said that there would be "defects" in a post-revolutionary society. Yes, Marx and Engels said that the state wouldn't be abolished overnight but would wither away in a post-revolutionary society. And yes, Marx and Engels said that the post-revolutionary society, coming out of the womb of the old bourgeois one, would be, in all respects (culturally, economically, intellectually etc.) stamped with the birthmarks of the old society.

All of this they said due to the material question. Capitalism prepares the overthrow of its system, but it doesn't prepare the material conditions for a communist society of the higher phase of communism type. The system cannot function to that point, it would have rendered itself useless long before. Mind you, feudal society didn't prepare the material conditions for a "fully capitalist" society either, the bourgeois had to get rid of the hampering of development by the feudal system before they could develop sufficiently enough. Of course, the higher the material conditions, or the "economic revolution", attained by society, the higher the form of communism will be. But it will not be high enough to abolish the state overnight and get rid of scarcity (its fundamental basis) overnight. It will be high enough to transform the state into a commune-state, a state no longer such in the proper sense of the term, but entirely? No.

That is the crux of the matter, and there's nothing more to be said about it unless you hold the belief that material conditions will be sufficiently prepared by capitalism for a transition from capitalism to a stateless, classless higher phase of communism society. That is, unless you believe that the material conditions for the vanishing of the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and with it also the antithesis between mental and physical labor will be prepared by capitalism.

If you want to believe that I have no problems with it, but given the data available and also historical example, it not only seems unlikely, but I would say impossible.


Also, Marx says that to solve the defects, the right must be unequal rather than equal ("To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal"), but its existence as an equal-unequal right is inevitable in the initial stage of socialism. So, in this case, will there be a state in the higher stage of socialism to 'enforce' this unequal right? Or, hell, will there be no rules in the higher phase of socialism (I'm still not entirely sure how labour vouchers necessitate a state, though)?

I think you're still referring to "the state" in the bourgeois sense of the term. I have already said that the post-revolutionary type of state would be radically different. Would you call the commune "a state" like you refer to a bourgeois state? I wouldn't simply call the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat a state like I would a bourgeois state, I would refer to it as a proto-state, or commune-state, or a state in the process of withering away completely.

And when Marx refers to "all these defects" he's referring to those defects he described in his previous sentence: "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."

He's only referring to the economic question there, of course out of that economic question comes forth the "moral and intellectual birthmarks" he mentions here: "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 comes."

To paraphrase someone: 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.


To prove the existence of the state, you must prove the existence of class rule. Where is there class rule? Also, what is it that makes the dictatorship of the proletariat revert to a bourgeois state (or, if we're to use Engels' suggested replacement for the word, a 'bourgeois commune')?

You're not looking behind the meanings of the concepts you're talking about. The state arose out of material necessity. Material necessity caused antagonisms in society which the state needs to regulate. The existence of the state is based on the antagonisms created out of material conditions of society. Since in a post-revolutionary society those antagonisms have all-but vanished, the state will also all-but vanish. It will wither away in accordance with the development of the economic revolution, i.e., increase in material conditions.

However, antagonisms will still exist, of varying kinds, which are a product of the lack of material conditions and are a inheritance of the previous society. Therefore, a form of state will also still exist, until those material conditions are developed sufficiently to cure the defects. And yes, the only cure for those defects is a materially advanced, post-scarcity society, where the right to be equal is not to be unequal, but where equality truly exists and therefore no longer has to exists:

"The state will be able to wither away completely when society adopts the rule: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", i.e., when people have become so accustomed to observing the fundamental rules of social intercourse and when their labor has become so productive that they will voluntarily work according to their ability." Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s3)


Class rule, yes. So what we need here is to find where it is that class rule exists here.

No, he's not simply referring to class-rule, he's referring to the lack in material conditions which a post-revolutionary society - which is stamped with the birthmarks of the society whose womb it comes from - has to confront and "destroy".


Source?


The question then arises: What transformation will the state undergo in communist society? In other words, what social functions will remain in existence there that are analogous to present state functions? This question can only be answered scientifically, and one does not get a flea-hop nearer to the problem by a thousand-fold combination of the word 'people' with the word 'state'.

Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm)

With "the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other" he is referring to the lower, first phase of communism, which is the transitionary form between capitalism and the higher, entirely stateless and classless, phase of communism. He makes that distinction clear in the same work containing the above quote, and I have quoted it several times already, but you can read it here: Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm)


From the outset the Commune was compelled to recognize that the working class, once come to power, could not manage with the old state machine; that in order not to lose again its only just conquered supremacy, 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.

[...]

Against this transformation of the state and the organs of the state from servants of society into masters of society – an inevitable transformation in all previous states – the Commune made use of two infallible expedients. In this first place, it filled all posts – administrative, judicial, and educational – by election on the basis of universal suffrage of all concerned, with the right of the same electors to recall their delegate at any time. And in the second place, all officials, high or low, were paid only the wages received by other workers. The highest salary paid by the Commune to anyone was 6,000 francs. In this way an effective barrier to place-hunting and careerism was set up, even apart from the binding mandates to delegates to representative bodies which were also added in profusion.

This shattering of the former state power and its replacement by a new and really democratic state is described in detail in the third section of The Civil War.

[...]

In reality, however, the state is nothing but a machine for the oppression of one class by another, and indeed in the democratic republic no less than in the monarchy; and at best an evil inherited by the proletariat after its victorious struggle for class supremacy, whose worst sides the proletariat, just like the Commune, cannot avoid having to lop off at the earliest possible moment, until such time as a new generation, reared in new and free social conditions, will be able to throw the entire lumber of the state on the scrap-heap.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/postscript.htm)

Notice how both of them are simply repeating what I said. It would be better to say though that I'm simply repeating what they said, and argued. As I said, the "truly democratic state" has nothing in common with a bourgeois state, so the two should not be used interchangeably. And also, the state is simply an evil inherited by the proletariat, whose worst sides the proletariat must lop off at the earliest possible moment, until such time as a new generation reared in new and free social conditions (so not just a couple months or years after expropriating the capitalists as you mentioned earlier) will be able to throw the entire lumber of the state on the scrapheap.


Also, are you now saying that common ownership of the means of production will be in place during the revolution, rather than the revolution involving the subjugation of the interests of the capitalist class (expropriation of the expropriators), hence the dictatorship of the proletariat in the first place?

I don't see "the revolution" as a process simply referring to the seizure of power by the proletariat, or the rising of the proletariat to the ruling class. I see the revolution as a continuous process which will, in all areas of society (culture, economics, intellectually etc.) continue to progress until a stateless, classless society of the higher phase of communism type has finally liberated humanity from the shackles of class-society and all the "old crap" that comes with it.

In other words, I see it as a permanent revolutionary process until communism is reached.


Also, Marx is quite clear that the dictatorship of the proletariat only exists while "other classes, especially the capitalist class" still exist. If everybody is a worker, where does class come into it?

Yes, Marx is quite clear in that, but you seem to ignore all the other things he mentioned which condition the existence of the dictatorship of the proletariat:


“This Socialism” (i. e. communism) “is the declaration of the permanence of the revolution, the class dictatorship of the proletariat as the necessary transit point to the abolition of class distinctions generally, to the abolition of all the relations of production on which they rest, to the abolition of all the social relations that correspond to these relations of production, to the revolutionising of all the ideas that result from these social relations.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/class-struggles-france/ch03.htm)

He himself added the "i.e., communism" in parenthesis in a letter he wrote: Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/07/04.htm)

Notice how the doesn't only mention "classes", but everything that comes with class-society. If I recall correctly, Trotsky took his "permanent revolution" phrase from this quote.

Also, again, the previous quote from the Critique of Gotha Programme which I posted above mentions the two phases of communism, where he attaches the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat to its first phase, the lower phase, which he elsewhere described as being a post-revolutionary society "still stamped, in every respect, with the birthmarks of...". Again, it's not just "classes" or "class-society" in the formalized sense that you're talking about, but all the old crap that comes with it.


Light red and dark red are both red.

The color red doesn't have a higher or lower quality to it, it simply exists as a color. There is no quantifiable difference between the two.

It's like saying that a feudal society and a capitalist society are both class-societies, so they're the same. Or that the capitalism of the early 19th century is the same as the capitalism of today.

No, capitalist society is further developed (and actually is based on the development level of feudal society) than a feudal society. And no, the capitalism of today is more developed than the capitalism of the early 19th century, they are "higher" in that respect.

In the same way, the communism of a higher phase will be further developed than the communism of a lower phase. Therefore a distinction is made between the two, and therefore one cannot be the same as the other, i.e., one cannot be "just as developed", "just as full" as the other:

"What is usually called socialism was termed by Marx the “first”, or lower, phase of communist society. Insofar as the means of production becomes common property, the word “communism” is also applicable here, providing we do not forget that this is not complete communism." Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm)

As I've said before, if they were the same, Marx and Engels wouldn't have been inane enough to make a distinction.


And anyways, if it's a class society, how is it in any way 'communist'?

It's not a class-society, it's a society that's in the process of abolishing classes and everything that comes with it, a society that is in the process of revolution in every regard, economically, intellectually, culturally, etc.

It was described as communist by Marx and Engels because it's a transition conditioned by the level of the economic revolution. Things such as common ownership over the means of production, an end to the exploitation of man by man, equality in the bourgeois sense of the term, withering away of the state etc. make it such a transitionary form of society.

I think the crux of the matter was a disagreement in the form of a post-revolutionary society. You seem to be convinced that shortly after a revolution society will be ready to advanced to a classless and stateless society, but I think you are making a mistake ignoring or undervaluing the importance of the inheritance the post-revolutionary inevitably has to take from the previous class-society. That inheritance is not only economic in nature (which the chief cause of all the other "defects", I might add), but also cultural, intellectual, psychological and even moral. In all respects, as Marx said.

To top it off, here's a quote from Lenin on the distinction between the two phases of communism, summing up the essence of the argument:

The great significance of Marx's explanation is, that here too, he consistently applies materialist dialectics, the theory of development, and regards communism as something which develops out of capitalism. Instead of scholastically invented, 'concocted' definitions and fruitless disputes over words (What is socialism? What is communism?), Marx gives analysis of what might be called the stages of the economic maturity of communism.

However, this disagreement isn't really that major if we agree on the necessity of proletarian revolution to begin with, is it?

Anyway, I hope I have sufficiently answered your questions in this post. It was fun having this discussion with you, and I hope we both learned a thing or two from it. :)

[Comrade Anarchist]

a lot of people think it is the dictatorship of the proletariat while communism is the when that dictatorship withers away

[el_chavista]

a lot of people think it is the dictatorship of the proletariat while communism is the when that dictatorship withers awayBut the PC or whatever got to wither too and you'll still need revolutionaries to continue the communist revolution. So anarchists will never wither away.

[robbo203]

.

Firstly, obviously he did say that the lower phase of communism had a form of state (revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat) for the "revolutionary transformation of society" is part of the lower phase, one of the earliest stages of that lower phase I might add. You can't really detach that stage from socialism or the lower phase of communism, it is meaningless to do so..


No this is incorrect. Marx did NOT identify the lower phase of communism with a dictatorship of the proletariat or indeed with socialism. (It was Lenin who introduced the distinction between socialism and communism firstly by identifying socialism with the lower phase of communism and then coinfusingly calling socialism "state capitalism" run supposedly in the interests of the workers) . But Marx was quite clear on this matter. After the capture of political power there was a dictatorship of the proletariat (still a class-based society) BETWEEN capitalism and communism (he specified "between" quite clearly meaning the DoP could not be part of communism) then there was a lower phase of communism or socialism and then there was a higher phase of communism or socialism - three quite distinct phases

Some of us would argue that the first of these is now totally unnecessary and pointless. There is an interesting debate over whether the second of these phases - the lower stage of communism based on the use of labour vouchers- is necessary (this is mainly a debate between people like the SLP and the WSM). My own personal slant on this is the some form of rationing for some goods may be necessary in this lower phase of communism but not necessarily in the form of labour vouchers which I think is an unwieldy system).

However there is another suggestion which has not yet been seriously considered which is the idea of a transition BEFORE the political capture of power (see the thread on the "germs of communism" idea)

[robbo203]

Here is an interesting article by Adam Buick of the WSM which sheds light on my post above http://bataillesocialiste.wordpress.com/english-pages/1975-the-myth-of-the-transitional-society-buick/

[Led Zeppelin]

No this is incorrect.

You quote only one short part of my post while ignoring all the extra information (including quotes by Marx and Engels themselves) which prove that you are, in fact, incorrect.

For example, here's one quote from Marx which I posted where he identifies a state existing "under communism" and he identifies it as "the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat":


The question then arises: What transformation will the state undergo in communist society? In other words, what social functions will remain in existence there that are analogous to present state functions? This question can only be answered scientifically, and one does not get a flea-hop nearer to the problem by a thousand-fold combination of the word 'people' with the word 'state'.

Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
Link (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm)

With "the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other" he is referring to the lower, first phase of communism, which is the transitionary form between capitalism and the higher, entirely stateless and classless, phase of communism. He makes that distinction clear in the same work containing the above quote, and I have quoted it several times already, but you can read it here: Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm)


Marx did NOT identify the lower phase of communism with a dictatorship of the proletariat or indeed with socialism.

Can post some quotes from Marx himself on this proving what you said?

If you believe that Marx referred to the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat as only a short period to exist post-revolution, which would then for some reason "dissolve" into...into what? Another form of state? He's quite clear that a type of state will continue to exist "in communism", so what exactly would the dictatorship of the proletariat transform into that is different from itself?

Here are some more quotes on this question:

Marx: ...When the workers replace the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie by their revolutionary dictatorship ... to break down the resistance of the bourgeoisie ... the workers invest the state with a revolutionary and transitional form ...

Engels: As, therefore, the state is only a transitional institution which is used in the struggle, in the revolution, to hold down one’s adversaries by force, it is sheer nonsense to talk of a ‘free people’s state’; so long as the proletariat still needs the state, it does not need it in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist ... Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat#Lenin)

So, if they are saying that the state will cease to exist, i.e., will have withered away with the end of the "revolutionary dictatorship", then that would be contradictory to what they said about the state continuing to exist "in communism". I don't think this is the case though.

EDIT: I just came across a good summary of my earlier point regarding the material conditions in a post-revolutionary society which will hopefully help clarify it, so here it is:


In his famous polemic against Dühring, Engels wrote:

“When, together with class domination and the struggle for individual existence created by the present anarchy in production, those conflicts and excesses which result from this struggle disappear, from that time on there will be nothing to suppress, and there will be no need for a special instrument of suppression, the state.”

The philistine considers the gendarme an eternal institution. In reality, the gendarme will bridle mankind only until man shall thoroughly bridle nature. In order that the state shall disappear, “class domination and the struggle for individual existence” must disappear. Engels joins these two conditions together, for in the perspective of changing social regimes a few decades amount to nothing. But the thing looks different to those generations who bear the weight of a revolution. It is true that capitalist anarchy creates the struggle of each against all, but the trouble is that a socialization of the means of production does not yet automatically remove the “struggle for individual existence.” That is the nub of the question!
Link (http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch03.htm#ch03-3)

[robbo203]

You quote only one short part of my post while ignoring all the extra information (including quotes by Marx and Engels themselves) which prove that you are, in fact, incorrect.

For example, here's one quote from Marx which I posted where he identifies a state existing "under communism" and he identifies it as "the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat"

With "the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other" he is referring to the lower, first phase of communism, which is the transitionary form between capitalism and the higher, entirely stateless and classless, phase of communism. He makes that distinction clear in the same work containing the above quote, and I have quoted it several times already, but you can read it here:


I think you are misreading this completely. Marx did not say the revolutionary transformation in the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat was between capitalism and the higher phase of communism but "between capitalist and communist society" i.e. both lower and higher communism. It says so in black and white in the quote you provided.

You also misunderstand the point about the state in a communist society. He is talking about the functions of the state, some of which would be retained in a communist society. He was not actually saying there would be a state in a communist society

Have a look at the article I posted from Adam Buick for further evidence

[Led Zeppelin]

I think you are misreading this completely. Marx did not say the revolutionary transformation in the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat was between capitalism and the higher phase of communism but "between capitalist and communist society" i.e. both lower and higher communism. It says so in black and white in the quote you provided.

Again; you are entirely ignoring the other quotes I posted which prove that you are wrong and clarify what he meant by what he said.

Since Marx didn't use "socialism" and "communism" as distinct from each other, he could not have phrased it otherwise. What else could he have said keeping this in mind? Between capitalist and ... society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Between capitalist and what society?

So either Marx was saying that the state will continue to exist "in communism" referring to its lower phase, and then calling that form of state the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, or he was contradicting himself by saying elsewhere that a communist society of the "lower phase" has a form of state and is a transitionary form of society.

Also, his description of the lower phase of communism and the form of state in it, i.e., the dictatorship of the proletariat, equals the description of "the revolutionary transformation of society" which he describes as being the transition period between capitalist and communist society. There is nothing else he could be referring to but the transitionary phase of society post-revolution, which is the lower phase of communism.

Once again:

Marx: ...When the workers replace the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie by their revolutionary dictatorship ... to break down the resistance of the bourgeoisie ... the workers invest the state with a revolutionary and transitional form ...

If he was not referring to the lower phase of communism in that, which he described as a society which consists of revolutionary transformation, then he was referring to nothing, since he never described any other form of society.

You have not provided any quotes to back up your view, so I have no idea why you continue to believe you are right.


You also misunderstand the point about the state in a communist society. He is talking about the functions of the state, some of which would be retained in a communist society. He was not actually saying there would be a state in a communist society.

This is mere word-play. A mechanism with "functions of state" of the post-revolutionary kind is a form of state. It's not the same form of state as we have now, or has we have ever seen before in history, but it's still a form of state. It's a revolutionary and transitional form of state, in the words of Marx.

The form of state under the feudal system isn't the same as the bourgeois state, do we say that the feudal state is not a state because it had different functions and means to carry them out? Of course not.

Neither did Marx and Engels.


Have a look at the article I posted from Adam Buick for further evidence

The only evidence I would like to have are quotes from Marx and Engels themselves where they say that the dictatorship of the proletariat is distinct from "communism" and that there is no difference within "communism" in its lower or higher phase.

That is the only evidence that is worth something in this discussion since we're arguing about what their view was on this.

[pastradamus]

Simply put. The historical Assumption of the difference between Socialism and communism was that communism came through the barrel of a gun whereas Socialism was ballot box style. This has however lost most of its meaning today. So im unsure.

[Coggeh]

Socialism and Communism are quite different .

Communism doesn't mean stalinism or violent movements.

Simply, socialism is the phase of the dictatorship of the proletariat . Instead of bourgeois society like today it would be replaced with workers power and workers democracy . A nationalised economy under workers control etc .

Communism is a stateless classless society .Where their is decentralised democracy etc .

Socialism is the pathway to communism for marxists/Leninists/Trotskyists/Stalinists etc

[robbo203]

Again; you are entirely ignoring the other quotes I posted which prove that you are wrong and clarify what he meant by what he said.

Since Marx didn't use "socialism" and "communism" as distinct from each other, he could not have phrased it otherwise. What else could he have said keeping this in mind? Between capitalist and ... society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Between capitalist and what society?

So either Marx was saying that the state will continue to exist "in communism" referring to its lower phase, and then calling that form of state the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, or he was contradicting himself by saying elsewhere that a communist society of the "lower phase" has a form of state and is a transitionary form of society.

Also, his description of the lower phase of communism and the form of state in it, i.e., the dictatorship of the proletariat, equals the description of "the revolutionary transformation of society" which he describes as being the transition period between capitalist and communist society. There is nothing else he could be referring to but the transitionary phase of society post-revolution, which is the lower phase of communism.
.

The point I was trying to make was that Marx envisaged three distinct phases

1)the dictatorship of the proletariat - a political transition
2)the lower phase of communism
3)the higher phase of communism

Your mistake is to conflate 1) and 2). As I pointed out Marx said 1) was a transitional phase between capitalism and communism and by communism he meant 2) and 3). 1) cannot possibly be equated with 2). Think about it. Communism means there are no longer any classes - there is no proletariat and no bourgeosie. Ergo, there cannot be a dictatorship of the proletariat in the lower phase of communism otherwise we would not be talking about it being communism at all.

[Led Zeppelin]

The point I was trying to make was that Marx envisaged three distinct phases

1)the dictatorship of the proletariat - a political transition
2)the lower phase of communism
3)the higher phase of communism

That's a good point you're trying to make, but since you have failed to produce any quotes by Marx saying this, I'm going to have to consider it your point, and not his.

And I believe you're wrong for the same reasons Marx does: the dictatorship of the proletariat is a revolutionary and transitional form of state which is a state in the process of withering away. To paraphrase Marx and Engels, that is.


As I pointed out Marx said 1) was a transitional phase between capitalism and communism and by communism he meant

And he also said, as I have pointed time two times now, that there would be a state "in communism" and that the lower phase of communism was a transitional phase between capitalism and the higher phase of communism, containing that revolutionary and transitional form of state due to the lack of material conditions required for a "higher phase of communism" type of society.

So if you are right, Marx was contradicting himself or expressing meaningless tautologies. However, going by Marx and Engels' own words, you are not right.

I'm certainly not the only one who believes this:


Still, there are two other things to do: discuss the possible general direction of a future development insofar as such a direction can be deduced from real experience; and at least try to pose the question itself clearly.

The latter is what Marx did cursorily in his Critique of the Gotha Programme. His suggestion on how to formulate the question itself is a guide for speculation.

"The question then arises: what transformation will the state undergo in communist society? In other words, what social functions will remain in existence there that are analogous to present-day functions of the state?"

Marx makes clear he does not intend to answer the question. (This passage leads right into his reference to the “dictatorship of the proletariat” instead). But let us be sure we understand what question he is posing.

In the first place, remember that Marx is explicitly not using the term “communist society” to mean some very advanced stage of the future social order. He had already referred to “communist society ... just as it emerges from capitalist society”. When, therefore, he mentions “the future state of communist society”, there is no reason to be puzzled. It is simply a question of the workers’ state that replaces the capitalist state.

But it is a state which is in the course of “gradual dissolution”. In this connection, the traditional talk of stages (socialist, communist) can be misleading if interpreted as compartmentalized periods opening and closing according to some set criteria. It is a gradual process, though gradualness does not exclude jumps.

Link (http://marxists.org/archive/draper/1970/xx/state.html)


1) cannot possibly be equated with 2). Think about it. Communism means there are no longer any classes - there is no proletariat and no bourgeosie. Ergo, there cannot be a dictatorship of the proletariat in the lower phase of communism otherwise we would not be talking about it being communism at all.

You draw a conclusion from a false premise. In the lower phase of communism, there are still lingering forms of classes and class-consciousnesses present. Again, I have been arguing this throughout this thread and Marx and Engels have backed me up on this; If a post-revolutionary society is rid of classes altogether and therefore also rid of the state (in all its forms), it would require material conditions sufficient for this, and there would be no need for a "lower phase of communism stamped with the birthmarks, in all respects, economically, psychologically, intellectually, morally etc. of the society it came out of." A society, to repeat once again, which also has a type of state.

So actually, there is a dictatorship of the proletariat "in communism", it is in the lower or first phase of communism which has not yet sufficiently developed out of class-society.

"This Socialism is the declaration of the permanence of the revolution, the class dictatorship of the proletariat as the necessary transit point to the abolition of class distinctions generally, to the abolition of all the relations of production on which they rest, to the abolition of all the social relations that correspond to these relations of production, to the revolutionizing of all the ideas that result from these social relations." - Marx

However, if we go by your take on what Marx and Engels said we'd have to believe that they were of the opinion that the dictatorship of the proletariat would exist for generations "until free men were born in really free social conditions", and then the dictatorship of the proletariat was abolished or something, and then another form of state would somehow arise "in communism" which would start "withering away" in the lower phase of communism until it reaches the higher....even though there's no real reason for a lower phase of communism to exist since "all class distinctions generally, all the relations of production on which they rest and all the social relations that correspond to these relations of production" have already been "abolished" by this point, i.e., during the "class dictatorship".

It doesn't make any sense unless you believe they contradicted themselves with what they said.

You are missing the entire point of Marx marking two distinct phases of communism, you consider them to be one and the same with only minor differences, without thinking about what those differences are and why they would exist.

If you understand that, then you will understand Marx and Engels' reason for calling things by their names; because that's what they are.

But anyway, I don't think you can be convinced on this, and neither will I unless you provide evidence for your point, that is, unless you provide quotes backing up your point. If you are unable to do that we're just arguing pointlessly because the point of contention here is what their view was on this. You say it was one thing, I say it was another, and I have provided quotes to back up my take. You haven't provided any to back up yours, you only focus on a single sentence he wrote ignoring its context (i.e., the sentences he writes right before that one).

So can you provide quotes? Because if not, there's no real point in arguing about this any further...

[robbo203]

And he also said, as I have pointed time two times now, that there would be a state "in communism" and that the lower phase of communism was a transitional phase between capitalism and the higher phase of communism, containing that revolutionary and transitional form of state due to the lack of material conditions required for a "higher phase of communism" type of society....

No he didnt say there would be a state in the lower phase of communism, that is only your (illegitimate) interpretation of what he saying. He was addressing the question that might be posed of how the state in communism was to be transformed- making use of certain functions of the state while disposing of others - which does not mean he accepted the premiss upon which the question might be asked that there would be a state in communism. He was clear that in communism there would be no state. More evidence follows





You draw a conclusion from a false premise. In the lower phase of communism, there are still lingering forms of classes and class-consciousnesses present. Again, I have been arguing this throughout this thread and Marx and Engels have backed me up on this; If a post-revolutionary society is rid of classes altogether and therefore also rid of the state (in all its forms), it would require material conditions sufficient for this, and there would be no need for a "lower phase of communism stamped with the birthmarks, in all respects, economically, psychologically, intellectually, morally etc. of the society it came out of." A society, to repeat once again, which also has a type of state.
So actually, there is a dictatorship of the proletariat "in communism", it is in the lower or first phase of communism which has not yet sufficiently developed out of class-society.....

Again this is a illegitimate interpretation of what Marx said. Saying that Marx said the lower phase of communism would still be stamped with the birthmarks of the society it came out of does NOT mean it would still be a class society. It makes absolutely no sense to call the lower phase of communism a society still based on classes becuase the very fact that it is a communist society, albeit in a less developed form, precludes the possibility of classes . What you are attributing to Marx is an utterly absurd view which he would have rejected.

Your argument is as far as I can tell, is basically that if the material conditions were sufficiently developed there would be no need for a state and the continuation of classes. The fact that in the lower stage of communism the material conditions are not sufficiently developed "proves" according to you, that there must still be a state and classes. Your inference may or may not be empirically correct - although it could be argued that the material conditions not being sufficiently developed is a matter of degree and does not necessarily require that classes and states should still exist. However, as you pointed out to me this question is not about what you and I might think would be the case but what Marx thought would be the case and he clearly did not think that the fact that the level of production was not yet adequate to support higher communism, ruled out a lower phase of stateless classless communism

Now for some quotes to back up my claims which you requested

In 1852 Marx wrote to Weydemeyer that “the dictatorship of the proletariat only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society" . By classless society, he meant communism not just the higher phase of communism. In 1873 Engels summed up his and Marx’s views in the Housing Question:
“The views of German scientific socialism on the necessity of political action by the proletariat and of its dictatorship as the transition to the abolition of classes and with them of the state. . .”

What I have established so far is that the dictatorship of the proletariat only applies to a still class based society and in a classless society there will be no state of any kind, according to Marx and Engels. Are you with me so far?

The next thing I have to demonstrate is that the lower phase of communism is a classless and therefore stateless society according to Marx and I will have proved my point

So what did Marx say about the lower phase of communism. He wrote very little about this but if you turn to the Critique of the Gotha Programme, you can see clearly that he regarded this phase of communism as classless - what else could it be - and hence stateless. For example he suggested the use of labour time vouchers for this phase but was at pains to point out that labour time vouchers were not money. Here is the significant point he made. "within the cooperative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their product".

Now this is an obvious reference to the lower phase of communism and hence indisputable evidence that he regarded this phase as being based on common ownership of the means of production. That and its inevitable corrollary that the "producers do not exchange their products" demonstrates beyond dispute that, for Marx, this was a classless society. You cannot have common ownership of the means of production and also class ownership of the means of production. The one thing precludes the other.

That is my evidence - and I could produce more - but what about your evidence? Apart from a vague reference to the the statement about the communist society still being stamped with the birthmarks of capitalism which you take it upon yourself to interpret as meaning the continuance of class relations, you produce no evidence whatsoever.

What I think that reference to the birthmarks of capitalism, means economically speaking, has nothing to with classes but with productive capacity. Lower communism is still restricted in productive terms and so requires some form of rationing in the form of labour vouchers. This interpretation seems to me to much more solidly grounded than yours. Because when it comes to the higher phase of communism Marx specifically talks of productive output flowing more freely enabling implementation of the principle "from each according to ability to each according to need". THAT is why he differentiated between lower and higher communism. The one phase need some form of rationing while the other did not. IT was not becuase the one still had classes and a state and the other did not. That would be a ridiculous differentiation becuase it would not be a lower phase of communism but some kind of class society we - and Marx - would be talking about

To repeat there were 3 distinct phases in Marx´s view

1) a political transistion corresponding to the dictatorship of the proletariat. still class based and with a state
2) a classless stateless lower communism characterised by labour time vouchers
3) a classless stateless higher communism characertsed by volunteer labour and free access to goods and services

[Led Zeppelin]

No he didnt say there would be a state in the lower phase of communism

Yes he did actually, and you yourself go on to admit it a sentence later:


He was addressing the question that might be posed of how the state in communism was to be transformed- making use of certain functions of the state while disposing of others - which does not mean he accepted the premiss upon which the question might be asked that there would be a state in communism.

A mechanism which still retains certain functions of the state while getting rid of others, is....still a form of state. These words contain neither praise nor blame; they name things with their real name. A famous revolutionary once said (on this very same issue, I might add): Such a contradictory characterization may horrify the dogmatists and scholastics; we can only offer them our condolences.

And that is the only thing I can offer you as well.

As I said before (and I'm going to have to do a lot of repeating here because that's what you seem to be doing over and over again as well):

"The form of state under the feudal system isn't the same as the bourgeois state, do we say that the feudal state is not a state because it had different functions and means to carry them out? Of course not. Neither did Marx and Engels."


Again this is a illegitimate interpretation of what Marx said. Saying that Marx said the lower phase of communism would still be stamped with the birthmarks of the society it came out of does NOT mean it would still be a class society.

Indeed, not a class society, but "a form of class society". A classless society cannot exist while still "being marked, in every respect, economically, culturally, intellectually etc. with the birthmarks of the society it came out of".

If you believe it can then you have misunderstood the concept of historical materialism, which lay at the basis of Marx's theories.


It makes absolutely no sense to call the lower phase of communism a society still based on classes becuase the very fact that it is a communist society, albeit in a less developed form, precludes the possibility of classes.

Yes, to the dogmatists and scholastics this may seem like a senseless and absurd thing because it doesn't seem to fit in with their stageist view of how history and society progresses. In reality however it names things with their real names, without praising or blaming them.

A society cannot do away with class distinction unless the material conditions for it exist. The material conditions for it cannot exist for capitalism does not prepare it. Therefore a lower phase of communism is required to deal with this issue, which is not only related to the underdevelopment of the material conditions but also the underdevelopment of the conditions of culture, intellectual level, psychology, consciousness etc.

Even though in the initial phase of the take-over of power the proletariat will have been raised to the ruling class, and will need a mechanism to keep its power to fight off the capitalists, this phase will soon give way to other phases, which are all in intrinsic part of the lower phase of communism as Marx described it. All these defects, inherited from the previous class-society, will gradually "wither away".


What you are attributing to Marx is an utterly absurd view which he would have rejected.

In reality, however, what you are suggesting would have been absurd to both Marx and Engels.

Imagine saying to them that they were in fact wrong for believing that the state with "wither away" because according to you a state cannot "wither away", for it has to be done away with already in the lower phase of communism as they described it. Imagine saying to them that the lower phase of communism, which retains "the narrow horizon of bourgeois law", does not contain any form of class-distinctions or any form of state.

They will answer you, as I have answered you; The traditional talk of stages (socialist, communist) can be misleading if interpreted as compartmentalized periods opening and closing according to some set criteria. It is a gradual process, though gradualness does not exclude jumps.

You view it as compartmentalized periods opening and closing according to some set criteria (criteria which you yourself create, I might add, having nothing in common with Marx and Engels' views), entirely ignoring and misunderstanding the reason for their use of the terms "withering away".


Your argument is as far as I can tell, is basically that if the material conditions were sufficiently developed there would be no need for a state and the continuation of classes.

There is no "if" involved here; capitalism cannot prepare the material conditions for a post-scarcity communist society of the higher phase of communism type. That is like saying that a slavery society can prepare the material conditions for capitalism, as opposed to feudalism.

And even the lowest stage of communism (socialism) is based on the level the most advanced capitalism has drawn near, but has not yet arrived at: “The lowest stage of Communism”, to employ the term of Marx, begins at that level to which the most advanced capitalism has drawn near.

When socialism, or the lowest stage of communism, has been "reached" (even before it has been reached) the process of the withering away of the state would be well underway (as it started the day the dictatorship of the proletariat was form, since it gives the state a "revolutionary and transitionary character"): "Socialism is a structure of planned to the end of the best satisfaction of human needs; otherwise it does not deserve the name of socialism. If cows are socialized, but there are too few of them, or they have too meagre udders, then conflicts arise out of the inadequate supply of milk – conflicts between city and country, between collectives and individual peasants, between different state of the proletariat, between the whole toiling mass and bureaucracy."

A post-scarcity society, when there is no want; that is the higher phase of communism, that is when socialism passes into communism, that is when the material conditions have been "prepared" for it and exist for it, not just economically, but also culturally, intellectually, and in every other respect.


The fact that in the lower stage of communism the material conditions are not sufficiently developed "proves" according to you, that there must still be a state and classes.

First of all, I have never said that there would be "a state and classes" in the same sense you are formulating and understanding it. So either you totally misunderstood what I was saying or are purposefully portraying it in this matter to ensure that other people will misunderstand it as well.

I said that there would still be a form of state, and forms of classes, which I referred to as "a state no longer in the proper sense of the term" and "classes no longer in the proper sense of the term", as Engels said: "The whole talk about the state should be dropped, especially since the Commune, which was no longer a state in the proper sense of the word." Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1970/xx/state.html)

Marx said the same thing: ... 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.

If you believe that this inequality which Marx referred to as "the narrow horizon of bourgeois law" can be enforced by a mechanism, I would like to know which mechanism you have in mind? To be honest I don't think it really matters for you, you seem only interested in avoiding to call it what it is; a form of state.


Your inference may or may not be empirically correct - although it could be argued that the material conditions not being sufficiently developed is a matter of degree and does not necessarily require that classes and states should still exist.

Actually it does require it, if you're a Marxist anyway, for: Law can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

That is the entire basis of Marxist thought. Engels said (in a quote I posted in one of my posts above which I'm not going to repeat here) that the state itself arose on the basis of material conditions. So it cannot be argued whether the state and classes can be gotten rid of unless the material conditions are sufficiently developed to the degree necessary to get rid of them.

And when that "degree of development" is reached, there is only communist society, or the higher phase of communism.


However, as you pointed out to me this question is not about what you and I might think would be the case but what Marx thought would be the case and he clearly did not think that the fact that the level of production was not yet adequate to support higher communism, ruled out a lower phase of stateless classless communism

Alright, let's see how clear this really is:


In 1852 Marx wrote to Weydemeyer that “the dictatorship of the proletariat only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society" . By classless society, he meant communism not just the higher phase of communism.

Well that is a great leap of faith! He says classless society, but he didn't mean by that what I say it means, he meant what you say it means. And why? Because you say so!

No, that isn't very convincing, especially not considering the many other quotes by him which clearly, yes clearly, indicate that he was referring to the higher phase of a communist society as being state and classless, and not to its lower, transitional phase.

"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.

[...]

Hence, equal right here is still in principle -- bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case.

In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.

[...]

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!" - Marx, Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm)

See the quote above where Marx clearly says that the relations of production and the social relations of the lower phase of communism are still marked with the stamps of the old society (defects, etc.) and contain "bourgeois right" and "bourgeois limitations"?

Could you perhaps explain how exactly the first phase of communism, which still exists "under the narrow horizon of bourgeois right and limitations", is entirely class and stateless? Are you saying that there is bourgeois right in a totally classless society? Talk about absurdities!

But on to another point: Marx is clearly saying that the lower phase of communism has defects, and that it is in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it comes.

So that includes all the relations of production, all the social relations that correspond to these relations of production and all the ideas that result from these social relations.

And here we have Marx saying this:

“This Socialism” (i. e. communism) “is the declaration of the permanence of the revolution, the class dictatorship of the proletariat as the necessary transit point to the abolition of class distinctions generally, to the abolition of all the relations of production on which they rest, to the abolition of all the social relations that correspond to these relations of production, to the revolutionising of all the ideas that result from these social relations.”

He is not only equating socialism with "communism" - in the same sense he used it in the other quote about a state existing "in communism", thereby disproving your claim about him referring to something else when he said that - of the lower phase, he's also equating the dictatorship of the proletariat with it, thereby also disproving your separate phase for dictatorship of the proletariat claim.

But here's the real significance of that quote: He says that this socialism, this communism, is the declaration of the permanence of the revolution, of the class dictatorship as the necessary transit point to the abolition of class distinction generally, all the relations of production on which they rest, and all the social relations that correspond and arise out of these relations of production. And to top it off, to the revolutionizing of all the ideas that result from these social relations.

Yes, the transit point to a society which is no longer in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it comes!

This is evidence; direct quotes proving you wrong.


In 1873 Engels summed up his and Marx’s views in the Housing Question:
“The views of German scientific socialism on the necessity of political action by the proletariat and of its dictatorship as the transition to the abolition of classes and with them of the state. . .”

When did I ever argue that the dictatorship of the proletariat is not a transition to the abolition of classes and with them of the state? In fact that is what I have been arguing all along. I even posted quotes by Marx and Engels to this effect!

How on earth is this "evidence" for your claim about the lower phase of communism not having a form of state? Where does he say that it doesn't have a form of state? How do you infer from this that he is referring specifically to the lower phase of communism? How does this fit in with the economic defects, the economic stamps of the old society inherent in the lower phase of communism, which are described above? How does this take into account the words of Engels on the state losing its political character, and that being the last act of the state as an independent entity, which would then "wither away"?

What he is in fact referring to with the "abolishing of the state" is the ultimate abolishment of the state which is the ultimate aim of the social revolution, and yes, the highest phase of communism, i.e., the abolishing of the state and classes, is indeed the ultimate aim of the social revolution. That process of "abolishment" was referred to as "withering away" to make sure it is not confused with the anarchist view of abolishing the state, i.e., abolishing it overnight.

Engels also said in a letter:

... “the abolition [abolizione] of the state” is an old German philosophic phrase, of which we were making use when we were simple youngsters.” Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1970/xx/state.html#n2)

That by itself destroys your "evidence", and proves my clarification of it to be correct.

But Engels also said this, which is a nice addition:

"State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then withers away of itself [schläft von selbst ein, lit., goes to sleep of itself]; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not “abolished” [abgeschafft]. It withers away [stirbt ab, lit., dies away, dies off]. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase “a free people’s state”, both as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the demands of the so-called anarchists for the abolition of the state out of hand." Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1970/xx/state.html#fv)


What I have established so far is that the dictatorship of the proletariat only applies to a still class based society and in a classless society there will be no state of any kind, according to Marx and Engels. Are you with me so far?

Yes, I am.

There is no doubt in my mind that you are certain that you have established what you said.

That has no bearing on the facts though, which clearly indicate that you have done no such thing.


So what did Marx say about the lower phase of communism. He wrote very little about this but if you turn to the Critique of the Gotha Programme, you can see clearly that he regarded this phase of communism as classless - what else could it be - and hence stateless.

So your evidence for your claim is to say that he wrote very little about it, but if I read some book which I have in fact read already, I can see clearly that he regarded what you consider him to have regarded.

That's like me saying that you should read The German Ideology because Marx clearly says in there that you're wrong. It doesn't really prove anything, it isn't really evidence, but it creates the belief or illusion of evidence provided.

But I do not believe in illusions.


Now this is an obvious reference to the lower phase of communism and hence indisputable evidence that he regarded this phase as being based on common ownership of the means of production.

It was never denied that socialism, the lower phase of communism, would be a society based on common ownership of the means of production. I never said otherwise.

Common ownership of the means of production, however, does not equal the material level required for a higher phase of communism type of society. That is the whole point of the difference between the phases which Marx laid out.


You cannot have common ownership of the means of production and also class ownership of the means of production. The one thing precludes the other.

When the proletariat owns the means of production, it will have begun the process of abolishing itself as a class, and in fact already has done so in some respects. You are again clinging to the idea of "the state" and "classes" as if I ever said that they would continue to exist in the same way they exist today.

In reality, the state and classes would not continue to exist in the same form as they exist today. In fact, both will begin the process of withering away, and in both cases they will no longer be such "in the proper sense of the term".

Ironically people like Engels became so annoyed by people like you, who couldn't comprehend the differences in the terms used for different phases of development, that they wanted to replace the use of the word altogether:

"The whole talk about the state should be dropped, especially since the Commune, which was no longer a state in the proper sense of the word. The [Lassallean formula] “people’s state” has been thrown in our faces by the Anarchists to the point of disgust, although already Marx’s book against Proudhon [The Poverty of Philosophy] and later the Communist Manifesto directly declare that with the introduction of the socialist order of society that state will dissolve of itself and disappear [sich von selbst auflöst und verschwindet]. [...] We would therefore propose to replace state everywhere by Gemeinwesen, a good old German word which can very well convey the meaning of the French word “commune”." Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1970/xx/state.html#fv)

However, when Marx says that inequality will continue to exist, that one person will be richer than the other, that the narrow horizon of bourgeois right will be retained etc., we are still dealing with an inheritance of the previous class-society. A society which is still marked with such defects cannot be called "classless", it is an affront to the word.

It is reminiscent of the Soviet ideologues who said that the USSR had achieved the complete victory of socialism, while people were resorting to cannibalism in the countryside during the famines.


That is my evidence

That is not evidence. That is nothing.


and I could produce more

If it is of the same nature as the "evidence" you provided in your previous post I would advise you not to bother.


but what about your evidence?

You mean the extensive quotes I provided by both Marx and Engels on the matter, referring to the defects and inequality which will continue to exist in the first phase of communism, referring to a state continuing to exist in communism (by which they were clearly referring to its first phase, quotes provided to support this as well), referring to the state withering away instead of being "abolished" overnight, referring to how the state arose in the first place as a result of material necessity thereby refuting the argument of being able to get rid of it without the material conditions having developed sufficiently to enable such a removal or withering away, referring to the existence of "bourgeois right" and " bourgeois limitations" in the lower stage of communism proving that you are in fact arguing an absurdity by saying that a society containing the narrow horizon of bourgeois right and limitations is in fact classless, elaboration on the meaning of the dictatorship of the proletariat which is identical to their description of the first stage of communism (even a quote literally identifying it with "socialism and communism") thereby disproving your theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat being a separate phase, the extensive quotes provided explaining the historical contexts of the arguments and quotes posted and elaborating on them.... if you missed all that then there's not much more to say, is there?


What I think that reference to the birthmarks of capitalism, means economically speaking, has nothing to with classes but with productive capacity. Lower communism is still restricted in productive terms and so requires some form of rationing in the form of labour vouchers.

You would do well to dwell on these words of Marx:

“A development of the productive forces is the absolutely necessary practical premise [of Communism], because without it want is generalized, and with want the struggle for necessities begins again, and that means that all the old crap must revive.” Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm)

If you believe that a society which lacks the productive capacity to fulfill the needs of everyone, and therefore has to resort to "some form of rationing" and retains the narrow horizon of bourgeois right and limitations can be called a society which has abolished the state (in any form, including its dictatorship of the proletariat/commune form, i.e., no state at all) and which is classless, then you do not sufficiently appreciate the importance of material conditions in regard to the development of society and everything that is involved in the processes of that development.

If you believe that, you do not understand the basis of historical materialism.


Because when it comes to the higher phase of communism Marx specifically talks of productive output flowing more freely enabling implementation of the principle "from each according to ability to each according to need". THAT is why he differentiated between lower and higher communism. The one phase need some form of rationing while the other did not.

Yes, that is indeed the main thing which differentiates the lower from the higher phases of communism (though you ignore the meaning of the intellectual, moral, cultural defects which Marx also refers to and are also important).

But as I said above, you do not fully appreciate and comprehend the implications which the lack of material conditions has on the development and being of society.

Marx and Engels, thankfully, did.

You believe that the difference you describe above is a simple one, a mild one, one which is not really that big of a deal. It is, on the contrary, the biggest deal of them all, and it is out of this big deal that the necessity for rationing and controlling labour, the inequality in means and economic being, the retaining of the narrow horizon of bourgeois rights and limitations, and much else stems from. You choose to label such a society totally classless and stateless.

I do not, for it is not.


That would be a ridiculous differentiation becuase it would not be a lower phase of communism but some kind of class society we - and Marx - would be talking about

Ironically, that is exactly the case; we are talking about some kind of class society. The kind that comes out of the womb of centuries of class-societies. The kind that is in the process of withering away. The kind which is a transition to the complete freedom of humanity. The kind which still has not crossed the narrow horizon of bourgeois rights and limitations.

" “[The state is] at best an evil inherited by the proletariat after its victorious struggle for class supremacy, whose worst sides the victorious proletariat, just like the Commune, cannot avoid having to lop off at once as much as possible until such time as a generation reared in new, free social conditions is able to throw the entire lumber of the state on the scrap heap.” - Engels

This usefully re-emphasizes that (a) even a workers’ state is an “evil”, albeit a necessary evil – a salutary reminder; (b) that the revolution must begin to denature the state “at once”, by destroying its “worst sides” immediately and without waiting for the beautiful day of the Museum of Antiquities; (c) that the final, complete junking of the state must not only await new generations (send not to ask how many) but will be possible only by a generation that has already been shaped in “new, free social conditions”." Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1970/xx/state.html)

A society containing the defects described by Marx is certainly not the type of society which Marx and Engels would describe as one with "new, free social conditions".

And yes, only a generation which has been reared in such new, really free social conditions, a society which has gotten rid of class distinctions generally, of all the relations of production on which they rest and of all the social relations that correspond to these relations of production, can throw the entire lumber of the dictatorship of the proletariat on the scrap heap.

Note how that is derived from direct quotes by Marx and Engels. Evidence, indeed.

[sanpal]

This dispute can be resolved very easily. For this purpose it is necessary to do distinction not simply between socialism and communism but also to do distinction between a capitalist mode of production and a communist mode of production (see post 'Socialist' mode of production (http://http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialist-mode-productioni-t106580/index.html)? http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialist-mode-productioni-t106580/index.html). Capitalist MOP takes place at Proletarian Socialism (DOTP) in the state or traditional private sector of economy where there are classes and hence the State governing, etc.Communistic mode of production takes place at Proletarian Socialism (DOTP) in communistic sector where inside it there are no classes, no State and there is a self-management (the lower phase of full communism where shortage of goods and services are exchanged in state-capitalist and traditional capitalist sector ).

Of course such type of society has birthmarks of capitalism and has full communist sector(s) though its lower phase. The replacement of the state-capitalist and traditional capitalist economic sectors with the growing up of the communist sector will cause the process of " withering" away of the State.

[robbo203]

It was never denied that socialism, the lower phase of communism, would be a society based on common ownership of the means of production. I never said otherwise.

Common ownership of the means of production, however, does not equal the material level required for a higher phase of communism type of society. That is the whole point of the difference between the phases which Marx laid out..

Bingo! This is what I wanted to hear you say. So the lower phase of communism is , you now admit , one based on common ownership of the means of production. In other words NOT class ownership of the means of production. That means there are no classes and hence also no state in the view of Marx and Engels as can be seen from the quotes I provided you with


All the rest as they say is irrelevent. The quote about about lower communism being stamped with the birthmarks of the old society does not and cannot mean what you think it does. It cannot mean being stamped with the same "relations of production" otherwise we would still be talking about capitalism not communism. As I argued before, what it means is that productive capacity is still not sufficiently developed to allow free access and hence the necessity for labour vouchers which distinguishes lower capitalism from higher capitalism

Your distinction between "class society" and a "form of class society" is a non distinction - a form of class society can hardly not also be a class society in substance which lower communism would not be. And as for the point about the state, Engels-quote says it all :Marx’s book against Proudhon [The Poverty of Philosophy] and later the Communist Manifesto directly declare that with the introduction of the socialist order of society that state will dissolve of itself and disappear .

Here he is not talking about a form of state but the state itself and he is stating quite clearly that it will disappear in socialism a term that you (not Marx or Engels) equate with the lower phase of communism which you hold will continue to have a form of state on the grounds that it is necessary for a system of rationing. As if rationing per se requires a state. It does not (some stateless societies operate rationing in the distribution of foodstuffs or the proceeds of the hunt) and to insist that it does is to to overlook what is the essence of the state - that it is an instrument of class rule in Marxian terms - and we have already establsihed that it socialism would be, can only be, a classless societyin the view of Marx and Engels

[Led Zeppelin]

All the rest as they say is irrelevent.

Yes, this pretty much sums up your position.

This is what we call selective reading. You take out what you think is good and what you agree with, and anything else that disturbs the tranquility of your fantasy theory which you have derived from one or two misunderstood quotes, is irrelevant.

You have entirely ignored the many quotes I provided which, when directly counterposed with the two quotes you provided, prove that you only read and see in them what you want to read and see in them, not what they actually mean.

And of course once again you go back to saying that I believe that the state and classes will continue to exist in the lower form of communism, even though I have repeatedly said that they won't exist in the same sense they exist today, thereby nullifying your "argument", or rather, word-play, on the "common ownership of the means of production" phrase.

But hey, if you want to believe that a society which retains bourgeois rights and bourgeois limitations, yes, I repeat, bourgeois rights and bourgeois limitations, is in actuality an entirely classless and stateless society, then be my guest.

There is no real point in me going over what you wrote in your post once again since you are only repeating what you have said before. All members need to do if they want to read more in-depth responses is to scroll back up a bit.

EDIT: I did find this bit highly amusing though:


As if rationing per se requires a state. It does not (some stateless societies operate rationing in the distribution of foodstuffs or the proceeds of the hunt)

Yes, clearly communism on the basis of the current material level of society and even higher is comparable to tribal societies consisting of a few dozen people at most which rationed after hunting for food, and which were not even developed enough to create surplus value and have a division of labour which is a prerequisite for the existence of a state as an arbiter in class-struggles and antagonisms....clearly this type of society is entirely comparable with a society which does create surplus value, does have a division of labour which needs to be regulated and does retain bourgeois rights such as inequality.

Yes, clearly.

[sanpal]

Public property on the means of production which takes place after socialization during DOTP is NOT the same thing as common property on the means of production in communist sector (lower phase of communism) during the same period of DOTP. So there is no reason to pull classes society or even only "form" of class society into communist society of the lower phase.

[Led Zeppelin]

Public property on the means of production which takes place after socialization during DOTP is NOT the same thing as common property on the means of production in communist sector (lower phase of communism) during the same period of DOTP. So there is no reason to pull classes society or even only "form" of class society into communist society of the lower phase.

Eh, you're referring to that period as the dictatorship of the proletariat while saying that there is no reason to pull class-society or even forms of class-society into it.

At least don't call it that so that your argument will make more sense, not that I would agree with it regardless, I prefer agreeing with Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky etc. on this since the arguments they provide for their view is correct, in my opinion.

[sanpal]

Eh, you're referring to that period as the dictatorship of the proletariat while saying that there is no reason to pull class-society or even forms of class-society into it.

At least don't call it that so that your argument will make more sense, not that I would agree with it regardless, I prefer agreeing with Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky etc. on this since the arguments they provide for their view is correct, in my opinion.

Unfortunately i have to be absent for a few day so i'll reply later

[robbo203]

Yes, this pretty much sums up your position.

This is what we call selective reading. You take out what you think is good and what you agree with, and anything else that disturbs the tranquility of your fantasy theory which you have derived from one or two misunderstood quotes, is irrelevant.

You have entirely ignored the many quotes I provided which, when directly counterposed with the two quotes you provided, prove that you only read and see in them what you want to read and see in them, not what they actually mean.

And of course once again you go back to saying that I believe that the state and classes will continue to exist in the lower form of communism, even though I have repeatedly said that they won't exist in the same sense they exist today, thereby nullifying your "argument", or rather, word-play, on the "common ownership of the means of production" phrase.

But hey, if you want to believe that a society which retains bourgeois rights and bourgeois limitations, yes, I repeat, bourgeois rights and bourgeois limitations, is in actuality an entirely classless and stateless society, then be my guest..


Yes I do believe that. Marx is referring to those residual superstructural attributes that derive from the capitalist past but linger on in a communist society that is nevertheless a completely classless and stateless society. In other words , the lag between superstructural changes and basic economic changes. For example, if people are not used to the idea io free access to goods and services they might tend to respond inappropriately by taking more than they need from the common stores. This is an example of a bourgeois limitation. So some kind of mechanism has to be put in place to ensure there is enough to go around for everyone, to encourage people to accept their responsibilities to each other and to learn through practical experience that there is no reason to take more than one needs. Hence the idea of labour time vouchers

But as far as the basic infrastructure of the lower phase of communism is concerned this is clearly classless (and hence stateless). Your resistance to accepting this simple fact which stares at you in black and white in the lines of the Critique of the Gotha Programmme is puzzling to say the least. If lower communism (like higher communism) is based on the "common ownership of the means of production" , if products are "not exchanged"., how on earth can there possibly be classes? How? You keep on dogging this point, refusing to accept its implications. Saying that classes and states wont exist "in the same sense" that they exist today is an utterly meaningless statement. You are saying they will exist in a different "form" in a communist society to avoid having to acknowledge in plain terms that what you are saying that is that lower communism would still be a class based society and thereby directly contradicting the quote about common ownership. But this is absurd. A swan is a form of bird that is different from a goose but that doesnt make it any the less a bird does it now? If you assert that there will be a form of class relations in lower communism that means you take lower communism to be a class based society. That being so it is up to you to explain how this squares with the complete absence of any form of economic exchange and with common ownership (as opposed to class ownership) of the means of production. You havent done so




EDIT: I did find this bit highly amusing though:



Yes, clearly communism on the basis of the current material level of society and even higher is comparable to tribal societies consisting of a few dozen people at most which rationed after hunting for food, and which were not even developed enough to create surplus value and have a division of labour which is a prerequisite for the existence of a state as an arbiter in class-struggles and antagonisms....clearly this type of society is entirely comparable with a society which does create surplus value, does have a division of labour which needs to be regulated and does retain bourgeois rights such as inequality.

Yes, clearly.

I fail to see what it is you find so amusing about my reference to primitive communistic societies. I was simply illustrating the point that a social mechanism of rationing does not necessitate a state. I was not making a comparison between primitive and advanced communism.

However, the logic of what you seem to be saying is that the complexity of modern society-its complex division of labour - is such that we can forget altogether about advancing towards a society completely without any state or classes (which for you would only be the higher form of communism). If that is what you are saying then this would seem to suggest that , according to you, advanced communism is impossible. Which opens up yet another can of worms...

[Led Zeppelin]

Yes I do believe that.

Have fun believing in something which isn't true.

You can continue to repeat that I haven't proven anything, ignoring the content of my posts, which you haven't bothered to reply to except to pick out one snippet and saying the rest of what Marx and Engels said is, quote; "irrelevant".


However, the logic of what you seem to be saying is that the complexity of modern society-its complex division of labour - is such that we can forget altogether about advancing towards a society completely without any state or classes

Yeah, it has become clear to me now that you don't understand or know anything about historical materialism, which explains why the basis of your position is word-play and semantics rather than rational, logical and Marxist analysis.

As Marx said, the higher phase of communism can only be reached when division of labour has withered away, since he counted that among the "defects" inherited from the previous class-societies. Division of labour can only wither away with the elimination of scarcity and want. You however are totally unaware of this (which, again, doesn't surprise me a bit) because you haven't read much by Marx (probably because you consider it to be "irrelevant"). This obviously disproves your claim about the lower phase of communism being class and stateless since a society which has a division of labour, according to Marx and Engels, also has antagonisms inherent within it (which Marx calls "enslaving subordination" and "bourgeois right and limitations") and therefore requires a form of state to regulate, ration etc. Hilariously you say that this mechanism of regulation and rationing are "labour time vouchers", as if magically somehow they can regulate and ration society without any other mechanism regulating the use of them, it all just happens automatically, this of course Utopian nonsense. Ironically Engels said that the state in this phase would only have an administrative function, that is, that of regulating and rationing labour by use of labour time vouchers. To people who simply cringe when they hear the word "state" without knowing in which context it is talked about or what is meant by it, however, that is not sufficient. Once again I can only offer you my condolences.

But hey, don't mind that, just continue to believe that one phrase which you have painfully misunderstood makes you right.

By the way, here's the quote where Marx says that about division of labour, which you can ignore because it's "irrelevant" and proves you wrong, like the many other quotes posted above:

"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished" - Marx (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm)

As I said before: This is what we call selective reading. You take out what you think is good and what you agree with, and anything else that disturbs the tranquility of your fantasy theory which you have derived from one or two misunderstood quotes, is irrelevant.

To be honest I think what you say is more irrelevant than what they ever said about this, so there's no real point in me arguing about this with you any further. I notice that I have already said this before but you keep making posts simply repeating yourself over and over, I wonder if there's any point in that.

[robbo203]

Have fun believing in something which isn't true.

You can continue to repeat that I haven't proven anything, ignoring the content of my posts, which you haven't bothered to reply to except to pick out one snippet and saying the rest of what Marx and Engels said is, quote; "irrelevant"..

I haven´t ignored the content of your posts. I have been trying to patiently demonstrate that you may have evidently misread or misunderstood the evidence you cite. But you continue to flatly refuse to consider this possibility

To remind you again of what I am claiming. That according to M & E there would 1) a dictorship of the proletariat amounting to a political transtion phase between capitalism and communism 2) a lower phase of communism or socialism being a classless and stateless society being still stamped by the birthmarks of the old (capitalist) society 3) a higher phase of communism or socialism from which these birthmarks have disappeared.

You consider 1) and 2) to bethe same thing but what is the evidence you produce to support this claim. You quote Engels about the withering away of the state but clearly this has to do with 1) and not 2). Once it is democratically captured by the proletariatit , the state begins to wither away and oddly enough, you agreed with me in this when you said "When socialism, or the lowest stage of communism, has been "reached" (even before it has been reached) the process of the withering away of the state would be well underway (as it started the day the dictatorship of the proletariat was form, since it gives the state a "revolutionary and transitionary character")". In saying "even before it has been reached", you implicitly concede that there is a distinction to be made between 1) and 2). You also quote from the Critique of the Gotha programme "The question then arises: what transformation will the state undergo in communist society? In other words, what social functions will remain in existence there that are analogous to present-day functions of the state?". But the implication of this is very clear to me: there is no state in communism. There are certain social functions that the state performs in capitalism that will nevertheless remain in communism but will not be performed by the the state but by something other than the state - an administration. Why else refer to the present day functions of the state? You are misreading the quote by assuming it means the continuation of the state into communism

So much for the existence of the state in lower communism, what of classes.? Your argument is basically this

"However, when Marx says that inequality will continue to exist, that one person will be richer than the other, that the narrow horizon of bourgeois right will be retained etc., we are still dealing with an inheritance of the previous class-society. A society which is still marked with such defects cannot be called "classless", it is an affront to the word.".

It is not at all an affront to the word, classless. Acturally the real affront is to call the lower phase of communism , communism, while insisting that it retains classes. That is utterly illogical and directly refuted by the evidence I gave you. Marx insisted that the lower phase of communism would be based on "common ownership of the means of production" - therefore not class ownership. He talked about this society being run by directly associated producers. He maintained that products are not exchanged in this society. He pointed out that "Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption." So means of production, as opposed to means of consumption, cannot be owned by individuals becuase they belong to society as a whole. And because they belong to society as a whole, there cannot be any classes. Although is perfectly clear and logical

How you can persist in thinking that classes will conrinue to exist in lower communism utterly baffles me . The whole idea of lower communism still being stamped with the birthmarks of the old society simply means that in certain superficial resepcts it is still carries certain residual aspects of capitalism. Fundamentally, at a systems level it is a qualitatively different form of society. This is the whole point of the metaphor of "birthmarks" - it is to indicate the superficality of the resemblances with the old society. There is a cultural lag at work here which means that only over time do attitudes adjust to the new reality of communism and this justifies the institution of such devices as labour vouchers. Fundamentally nothing differentiates lower communism from higher communism when the production of wealth flows more freely and people can then exercise free access to goods and services. It the same basic social system - a classless stateless society






Yeah, it has become clear to me now that you don't understand or know anything about historical materialism, which explains why the basis of your position is word-play and semantics rather than rational, logical and Marxist analysis.

As Marx said, the higher phase of communism can only be reached when division of labour has withered away, since he counted that among the "defects" inherited from the previous class-societies. Division of labour can only wither away with the elimination of scarcity and want. You however are totally unaware of this (which, again, doesn't surprise me a bit) because you haven't read much by Marx (probably because you consider it to be "irrelevant")..

I wouldnt be so presumptuous to say of you that you know nothing of about "historical materialism" - after all I dont even know you or what you have read - but you with your cocksure schoolboy arrogance presume to tell me what I dont know or what I havent read. You know sod all about me . We can do without this holier-than-thou lecture, if you dont mind.

I am well aware of Marx´s view on the division of labour, thank you very much, and it was not really that which I was getting at anyway but your point that "Yes, clearly communism on the basis of the current material level of society and even higher is comparable to tribal societies consisting of a few dozen people at most which rationed after hunting for food, and which were not even developed enough to create surplus value and have a division of labour which is a prerequisite for the existence of a state as an arbiter in class-struggles and antagonisms"

Marx´s picture of a communist society - the well known passage where he talks about the possibility of hunting , fishing or driving cattle in the morning and doing a spot of poetry in the afternoon ( I dont have the quote to hand and am a bit hazy about the details but people will recognize it) is really a statement about the disappearance of the division of labour in communism. The point that he was getting at is the enforced restriction of one´s productive activities within capitalism within the confines of a paid job. Marx is saying that an individual level this enforcement would disappear in communism. He is not saying that there will not still be a complex array of tasks needed to be done and this is what I was trying to emphasise

[Dave B]

Karl Marx. The German Ideology. 1845
Part I: Feuerbach.
Opposition of the Materialist and Idealist Outlook

A. Idealism and Materialism



Private Property and Communism



while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm)

[sanpal]

sanpal:


Public property on the means of production which takes place after socialization during DOTP is NOT the same thing as common property on the means of production in communist sector (lower phase of communism) during the same period of DOTP. So there is no reason to pull classes society or even only "form" of class society into communist society of the lower phase.




Eh, you're referring to that period as the dictatorship of the proletariat while saying that there is no reason to pull class-society or even forms of class-society into it.


Don't misrepresent my quote, pls. I said: "So there is no reason to pull classes society or even only "form" of class society into communist society of the lower phase."
The communist society whether is it the lower phase or the higher phase both are classless stateless society by definition, aren't they? But you saying "... into it" tie the context to DOTP as the class and state society by definition instead of saying "... into communist society of the lower phase" as i said. All what i have to say that the lower phase of communism goes not after ending of DOTP but DOTP is the necessary condition for creation and development of a sector of lower phase of communist society during period of DOTP. Why only sector? Because all class society can pass to classless form by not one stroke. If you model gradual passing to the classless society i.e to the lower phase of communism you unwittingly pull class society or even "form" of class society into lower phase of communism what is wrong, what contradicts definition. To justify your mistake, you wrongly interpreted "birthmarks" of bourgeois society in lower phase of communism, i won't repeat after robbo203 - he said perfectly about "birthmarks".
What is i don't agree with robbo203 that it is his division DOTP and lower phase of communist as different time periods while this is parallel processes, and even more to say this is one interdependent process.

The second argument i'd like to say about is economic component: class society uses market economy, money, monetary system. Classless society uses plan (marketless) economy, no money, etc. If to mix "both in one" i.e. to try to pass from monetary system into moneyless system through semi-money system (maybe you incorrectly interpret semi-money system as bourgeois birthmarks in "communist" society?) you can exactly get the Duhring's utopian socialism (socialitarianism) in theory and the stalinist socialism in practice which whether will fail if it has political liberation or it will cause a repressive regime to prevent destroying of this kind of society so the new gulags will be necessary.



At least don't call it that so that your argument will make more sense, not that I would agree with it regardless, I prefer agreeing with Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky etc. on this since the arguments they provide for their view is correct, in my opinion.


To prove that my view not contradict with marxism i'll do in the next post.