state socialism with wage labor? why? [Archive]

View Full Version : state socialism with wage labor? why?

Black Sheep

4th May 2009, 01:05

Stranger Than Paradise

4th May 2009, 07:09

Because State Capitalism has nothing to do with Marx's beliefs.

robbo203

4th May 2009, 10:00

Black Sheep

6th May 2009, 14:21

Sadly, the answers above are by non-leninists, so i would like to hear a counter argument..
Also, could one please explain thoroughly the 'material conditions' argument, and why is it necessary to move through state socialism which would centrally plan an increase of productive forces, when lenin himself made no distinction: he just said that in countries with an advanced capitalism economy, revolutions are difficult but building socialism is fairly easy, and vice versa.

ZeroNowhere

6th May 2009, 18:02

Generally, when Leninists start yapping about 'wages' in socialism, they're misusing the word (and most probably misusing 'socialism' too, but anyways). They're actually referring to labour credits, including perhaps the whole 'he who won't work won't eat' crap (I mean, people still take that as a tenet of anything?). Labour credits, of course, are not wages.

This is why Marx argued in Value Price and Profit that instead of the conservative motto of a fair days wage for a fair days work workers should inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword "abolition of the wages system"
Marx later commented in the Critique of the Gotha Program that it should read 'system of wage labour' rather than 'wages system'. Otherwise, yeah.

Also, on 'state socialism', "No Socialist is a "State Socialist." [...] Indeed, "State Socialism" is a contradiction in terms. We shall either have Socialism -- and that means that the State shall have vanished; or we shall preserve the State, and then we shall have no Socialism."

Cumannach

6th May 2009, 18:51

After the proletariat seize state power and after they then transfer all the means of production from private ownership, into public ownership, that is, proletariat ownership, they are no longer selling their labour-power as a commodity, since they own means of production and do not have to sell it to survive.

They own the means of production, and when they use them, they are using their own property, which means they own the product they produce, and receive the full value of the product of their labour in their paycheck minus the expenses needed to run their state (taxes). In this case, the country is still using purchase and sale with money for the exchange of goods among the people, and the workers will have to be paid money for their labour in money. This is what the wage system is in socialism until the money system of exchange is replaced.

It's fundamentally different from the wage system in capitalism, where the workers don't own the means of production, and don't therefore own the product of their labour, and are paid less than the value of the product they produce.

So a wage system under socialism is not the same as a wage system under capitalism.

Black Sheep

7th May 2009, 12:40

Cumannach:
Yeah but what material factor distinguishes the 2 types of wage system (socialistic, capitalistic)?
In both, the worker uses the machines, and for that he gets a reward to sustain his work power.Of course the value is higher than capitalism,but it is not a distinguishing factor, you can still get high wages in capitalism, given that there is a strong union in your workplace.
You can say that this is not an exchange of commodities (work force ~ labor) but to an outside observer it is, so what is the material difference?

Is it that in a way, the workers own and control the means of production through their delegates in the state machine?
But then again, if let's say, you disagree with the course taken (but centralism forces you to comply), how does this situation differ from a capitalist wage system?

ZeroNowhere

7th May 2009, 15:25

Is it that in a way, the workers own and control the means of production through their delegates in the state machine?
I don't really see how that makes sense, tbh. If there is collective ownership of the means of production, whence comes capitalism? And if capitalism has been abolished, there can be no wages.

Cumannach

7th May 2009, 18:34

Yeah but what material factor distinguishes the 2 types of wage system (socialistic, capitalistic)?
In both, the worker uses the machines, and for that he gets a reward to sustain his work power.Of course the value is higher than capitalism,but it is not a distinguishing factor, you can still get high wages in capitalism, given that there is a strong union in your workplace.
You can say that this is not an exchange of commodities (work force ~ labor) but to an outside observer it is, so what is the material difference?
The material factor that distinguishes them is this; in one system a part of the value the workers creates is stolen from him and he cannot object because the state is on the side of the robber; in the other system the worker is not robbed by anyone, because the state is on his side- it's his state. He receives in pay the full value he created, besides taxes.

This is the distinguishing factor. It is what actually defines capitalism and capitalist wage-labour: One individual owns all the means of production, one individual owns nothing, and must sell his labour-power to actually survive. The owner of the means of production pays the worker less than the value he creates, steals from him, and this system is enforced by the state which is under the control of the owners, the capitalists. Capitalism can't exist unless the capitalist is able to pay the worker less than the value of his labour. When the worker does receive his full value, capitalism doesn't exist.

It's not really an exchange of commodities to an 'outside observer', or if it seems to be, that's simply because the outside observer doesn't understand what's going on. The workers are the owners of the factories they work in. They're not selling their labour-power as a commodity to the factory owners because you can't sell something to yourself.

Is it that in a way, the workers own and control the means of production through their delegates in the state machine?
But then again, if let's say, you disagree with the course taken (but centralism forces you to comply), how does this situation differ from a capitalist wage system?'Centralism forcing you to comply' is just democracy. The organs for central planning are formed through elected representatives and delegates by the working class as a whole, so as to act in the interests of the working class as a whole, rather than in the narrow interest of one particular factory shop. The working class as a whole, own the means of production as a whole. It's not that each worker owns his own hammer as his private property. No one owns any means of production privately, individually- rather everyone owns all means collectively.

Decolonize The Left

7th May 2009, 23:48

For clarification purposes, I believe what Cumannach is trying to say is that under capitalism, the surplus value of labor is held by the capitalist class as profit. Under socialism, there is no surplus value of labor as the working-class is in control of the means of production and hence profit is non-existent.

- August

Black Sheep

8th May 2009, 15:36

Under socialism, there is no surplus value of labor as the working-class is in control of the means of production and hence profit is non-existent.

Isn't surplus value an objective term? Isnt it defined by [total value] minus the [minimum wage to the worker to survive & work]?Or is it jsut an economic aspect of capitalism?

rouchambeau

8th May 2009, 22:17

Cumannach:
He receives in pay the full value he created, besides taxes.

Does the worker give up the product of her labor to someone/something else in exchange for the full value of her labor?

Decolonize The Left

8th May 2009, 23:41

Isn't surplus value an objective term? Isnt it defined by [total value] minus the [minimum wage to the worker to survive & work]?Or is it jsut an economic aspect of capitalism?

The surplus value of labor involves two terms: surplus value, and surplus labor.

Surplus labor is simple: it is the labor which the worker puts into the job above-and-beyond the payment received.
Ex: During feudalism, the serf worked X days for the lord, and Y days for him/herself. Those X days are days of surplus labor, as the necessary labor is conducted during the Y days.
Under capitalism, surplus labor is complex for the wage is supposedly equal to the labor. This is where surplus value comes into play.

Surplus value is the value of surplus labor. In feudal times, that value what whatever product the worker produced while laboring for the lord (Z bushels of wheat, etc...). Under capitalism, it is called profit. We can see that surplus value is built into capitalism, as without it there can be no profit, and profit is the driving mechanism of the capitalist system.

Hence the surplus value of labor is what is commonly referred to as profit - it is objective in the sense that it can be measured, but it is relatively unclear as to the exact measure because surplus labor is difficult to calculate under capitalism (more difficult than, say, feudal labor).

- August

Cumannach

8th May 2009, 23:49

Cumannach:

Does the worker give up the product of her labor to someone/something else in exchange for the full value of her labor?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'give up'. Literally, obviously the worker has to 'give up' the product in order to get it's value in money. How else would an exchange be taking place? What do you mean?

BobKKKindle$

9th May 2009, 00:08

I'm reading in Capital, that the main aspect of capitalism is the "notion" that in capitalism, labor is a commodity just like any other,but a super commodity, that has the power to increase the value of the input commodities, thus the output products worth M' > M, where M is the value of the input commodities to production (first materials).

Given that, what is the leninists' argument (i don't know about the left communists' view on that, so inform me) for preserving the wage system in a socialist state(considering that capitalist advancement was in a level higher that average in the country that the revolution took place)?

Firstly, I think you'll find that Marx actually describes money as a supercommodity because it is the only commodity that can be used to purchase all other commodities, such that the usage of money in all spheres of economic activity is a phenomenon that is specific to capitalism, given that capitalism is the mode of production under which commodity production becomes dominant. Marx also used the term "universal pimp" in reference to the fact that under capitalism human behavior becomes determined solely by what will allow us to gain access to more money in order to purchase the things we need to satisfy our wants and needs. It wouldn't make much sense for Marx to argue that labour is a supercommodity because this would imply that labour has always been bought and sold (i.e. that labour has always been a commodity) whereas the existence of a labour market which allows workers to choose who they work for, instead of being forced to work for a particular member of the ruling class, is, again, something that is specific to capitalism, as can be observed if we contrast capitalism to feudalism and other pre-capitalist modes of production, under which there was a direct fusion of political and economic power, such that the accumulation of surplus value was carried out by the state apparatus instead of taking place through a market-based framework.

As for the question, Marx did not believe that a wage-labour dynamic would exist in a post-capitalist society. Marx did believe that workers (insofar as that term is still meaningful when capitalism and class antagonisms have been abolished) would continue to receive rewards in proportion to how much they were willing or able to work, which is what distinguishes socialism from communism, but this does not entail wage-labour, because wage-labour involves a worker's labour power being purchased by someone else, and workers being denied control of the production process as well as the goods that they produce in the workplace, none of which would occur under socialism. In addition, socialism would also be characterized by the absence of a reserve army of labour, i.e. unemployment, which is a product of capitalism's lack of rational direction, and allows the bourgeoisie to exert downwards pressure on wages and working conditions. The production of surplus value will continue under socialism as well as communism in the sense that workers will not receive the full value of what they produce, because surplus value is what allows for the expansion of the productive apparatus, the replacement of tools and machinery that have deteriorated, and the provision of support to those who are unable to work, such as the elderly, the very young, etc.

Marx gives an idea of what a post-capitalist society would look like in Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875) (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/index.htm).

PS Don't use the word "Leninist" - it is meaningless.

rouchambeau

9th May 2009, 18:01

I'm not sure what you mean by 'give up'. Literally, obviously the worker has to 'give up' the product in order to get it's value in money. How else would an exchange be taking place? What do you mean?

I didn't understand why, if the worker owns its means of production, the worker must exchange the product of its labor for the value of its labor. Why must there be exchange if the worker already owns the product of its labor?

Cumannach

9th May 2009, 18:27

robbo203

9th May 2009, 18:53

?
Why would a worker in, say, a car factory want to keep all the hundreds of cars he produces? He has no need for these cars. He has to give up the cars in exchange for the commodities he desires, like food, clothing, or whatever.

In a socialist state still using money for the exchange of commodities, the car maker get's a paycheck worth the value of all the car he has produced, which he can then use to buy the commodities he wants.

What you are describing is simply capitalism. In communism or socialism in which there is no working class or capitalist class everyone owns the means of production. There is common ownership.

The flaw in your argument is obvious. It is not just the car factory that is commonly owned but also the factories producing the other things that your worker desires.

So the question can be turned around in this way: If your "worker" shares in the common ownership of these other factories along with the car factory why would he have to pay for the goods produced buy these other factories?

That fact that he does shows that what you have is not socialism or communism but capitalism

SecondLife

9th May 2009, 20:44

I didn't understand why, if the worker owns its means of production, the worker must exchange the product of its labor for the value of its labor. Why must there be exchange if the worker already owns the product of its labor?

Exactly there is the mistake that makes anarchists, trotskyists and orthodox marxists (only my opinion, nothing personal):

If the worker (single) owns its means of production (as anarchists wants) - this is just exactly capitalism as it exist in nowadays. There is only question of time when anarcho-communists becomes anarcho-capitalists and when communes becomes corporations, if there don't exist state as 'proletariate dictature', that works by 'down to up' and 'up to down' management principe.

If the workers (many e.t. all workers) owns its means of production - this means socialism.
One single worker don't own nothing, except individual belongings, because if it owns means of production or private ownership, then it becomes capitalist, private owner, starts capital accumulation and giving profit.

........regardless that we all believe to Marx, he wasn't God and all that he says must not give word by word. Otherwise we becomes utopian socialists.

Black Sheep

13th May 2009, 11:02

As for the question, Marx did not believe that a wage-labour dynamic would exist in a post-capitalist society. Marx did believe that workers (insofar as that term is still meaningful when capitalism and class antagonisms have been abolished) would continue to receive rewards in proportion to how much they were willing or able to work, which is what distinguishes socialism from communism, but this does not entail wage-labour, because wage-labour involves a worker's labour power being purchased by someone else, and workers being denied control of the production process as well as the goods that they produce in the workplace, none of which would occur under socialism. In addition, socialism would also be characterized by the absence of a reserve army of labour, i.e. unemployment, which is a product of capitalism's lack of rational direction, and allows the bourgeoisie to exert downwards pressure on wages and working conditions. The production of surplus value will continue under socialism as well as communism in the sense that workers will not receive the full value of what they produce, because surplus value is what allows for the expansion of the productive apparatus, the replacement of tools and machinery that have deteriorated, and the provision of support to those who are unable to work, such as the elderly, the very young, etc.

Well,that sure is frustrating,but i think it is an outcome depending on how you define surplus value.If it is value of labor-labor paid, then you can consider it a 'universal' aspect of production, as the worker would have to contribute to society apart from his/her personal needs.

Anyway,so the workers get a cut of the value they produce (of course,larger than today's).
But still,doesn't that system 'I work-i get payed-i use the payemnt to buy commodities,with which to satisfy my needs' have to many leftovers from capitalism?
In Kapital,i read again, about commodities:
The use value gets distorted by the exchange value.A product on a shelf has no use value, because at first it has to utilize its exchange value,and if it doesn't, its use value will wither away and die, i.e. a loaf of bread in a bakery.

When money is involved,the worker still gets paid, and uses the money to satisfy his/her needs.Of course commodity produciton doesn't have to be capitalistic, however,it does not have to utilize money as well.
Wouldn't a labor voucher, ' you have worked today, go to your neighbourhoods resource center and take food & supplies ' be better?

mykittyhasaboner

15th May 2009, 04:36

What you are describing is simply capitalism. In communism or socialism in which there is no working class or capitalist class everyone owns the means of production. There is common ownership.
You have an incredibly skewed perception of socialism. Socialism is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat; meaning that proletariat has overthrown the ruling capitalist class and has since created a new worker's state. There is a working class in socialism, they are the ruling class, they are what a socialist state consists of; hence the term "worker's state". Your idea that somehow "everyone" can commonly own the means of production is inherently flawed because it does not address any realistic situation or course of action. This view also lacks recognition of the fact that class division cannot be abolished outright, and then somehow expect all means of production to be commonly owned by "everyone" all of the sudden.

If we are talking about communism, that's one thing but no society has ever come close to abolishing classes so we would be merely speculating; but when we speak of socialism, we definitely have to take into consideration that classes cannot be abolished instantly. So that means a system of class rule built by the working classes (under the leadership of the proletariat;"the state" or worker's state) is absolutely necessary in order to: A) combat inevitable counter-revolution, and suppress bourgeois, revisionist currents and influence among the political spectrum of a hypothetical worker's state, and B) to develop socialist production with the intent of one day, when the bourgeois are all but history, abolish classes all together.

The point is, with out completing this task of building a worker's state and laying down the foundations for working class rule first, there is absolutely no way a society can develop itself into one without class if bourgeois rule isn't effectively broken and utterly destroyed, and replaced by a system of based on the people's rule.

The flaw in your argument is obvious. It is not just the car factory that is commonly owned but also the factories producing the other things that your worker desires.Err, yes socialism is developed when the means of production have been seized by (or a significant portion of the means of production when referring to some cases, especially in undeveloped countries, new worker's states threatened by imperialism and counter revolution); and is commonly owned and controlled by the working classes.

So the question can be turned around in this way: If your "worker" shares in the common ownership of these other factories along with the car factory why would he have to pay for the goods produced buy these other factories?
Do you think the law of value as well as commodity production simply cease to exist once the workers have seized power? You can't simply claim that because all production is commonly owned that the forces of production have developed to a point where scarcity has been eliminated and has ensured material abundance (in which case, essentially nobody has to pay for anything). But that was not the case with the Soviet Union or any other socialist state, because as powerful as some of those economies were they didn't develop production enough to be able to provide free access of material goods without a means of exchange; because that's how (scarcity) economics work, even in planned economies.

Old man Vissarionovich does a good job at countering this view in Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/index.htm)

That fact that he does shows that what you have is not socialism or communism but capitalismNo it doesn't and you haven't proven anything by saying this.

Agrippa

15th May 2009, 12:05

mykittyhasaboner

15th May 2009, 15:56

This has absolutely nothing to do with the ideas of Karl Marx
Yes it does, your quote only reaffirms this; it describes how Marx envisioned a worker's state.

Agrippa

15th May 2009, 18:18

How is the Paris Commune at all the same as the Soviet Union?

mykittyhasaboner

15th May 2009, 18:30

How is the Paris Commune at all the same as the Soviet Union?

What are you talking about? I never said it was the same.

But what Marx described was a worker's state, and the Paris Commune was a worker's state. So I really don't know where your coming from when you say that the creation of a revolutionary worker's state has nothing to do with Marx's theory.

mykittyhasaboner

15th May 2009, 19:26

You're equating Marx's idea of proletarian dictatorship (which he uses as the Paris Commune, an example of "direct democracy", to use modern, mostly inaccurate anarchist lingo, to demonstrate) with centralized, bureaucratized "worker's states" such as the ussr, the prc, Cuba, Vietnam, etc., which is false.
Ha, if i had a nickel for every time I've seen this pitiful (strawman) argument. We could argue day and night about if past and present worker's states successfully replicate Marx's ideas, but that would be pointless. If revolutionary movement's never analyzed their own societies at their time, we wouldn't be talking about the October revolution or anything like that; because said movements would have failed if poised to follow Marx's theories word for word. The point is Marxists recognize that material conditions are different everywhere, and tactics must be adjusted accordingly. Surely you wouldn't find it wise to follow Marx's theories, or the Bolshevik programme today would you? Things change.

To my knowlege the concept of a "worker's state" did not appear in Marx's theories especially the later Marx. It's nothing but a justification for Leftist totalitarianism and counter-insurrection.Well your knowledge isn't really credible. Even the Paris Commune was centralized, as different neighborhoods were represented by their delegates in the state; what you call "Leftist totalitarianism" really only exists in your head. Also, if you think Marx never emphasized his position that a worker's state is necessary for socialism to develop, think again:

"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State..." - The Communist Manifesto

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. - Critique of the Gotha Programme

Il Medico

15th May 2009, 19:39

State Capitalism have nothing to do with Marx. That is why.

robbo203

15th May 2009, 22:57

You have an incredibly skewed perception of socialism. Socialism is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat; meaning that proletariat has overthrown the ruling capitalist class and has since created a new worker's state. There is a working class in socialism, they are the ruling class, they are what a socialist state consists of; hence the term "worker's state". Your idea that somehow "everyone" can commonly own the means of production is inherently flawed because it does not address any realistic situation or course of action. This view also lacks recognition of the fact that class division cannot be abolished outright, and then somehow expect all means of production to be commonly owned by "everyone" all of the sudden..

I am afraid it is not me, but you ,who demonstrates a skewed perception of socialism. Historically, socialism at least in the Marxian tradition was more or less a synonym of communism. It was Lenin amongst others who departed radically from this tradition by identifying socialism as the "lower phase of communism" at one point and then confusingly calling it "state capitalism" run in the interests of the workers, at another. I am not a leninist so I dont go along with Lenin's - or your - definition of socialism anyway

On the subject of the so called "workers state" I put this question to you as I have to other leninists on this list - where is the logic behind the claim that the workers having made themselves into a ruling class would allow themselves to be continued to be exploited by the capitalist class they had just overthown? Its just plain daft in my view. Because that is what is meant by working class. It is class category that signifies the exploited class in capitalism. By insisting that this self-evident poppycock on stilts called the "workers state" is what is meant by "socialism" what you really mean by that is that in "socialism", according to you, there will still be a working class exploited by a capitalist class because if there wasnt you couldnt possibly call it a "workers" state could you now? Duh. A workers state means there is a working class and by a working class is meant a majority class exploited by the capitalists. So a "workers state" is one which allows the continued exploitation of those in whose name it purportedly governs

But trying to get a leninist to argue their way out this one is about as productive and useful as trying to fashion a meaningful artistic sculpture out of tub of cold jelly. All you will get is a load of irrelevant waffle that neatly evades the point

If we are talking about communism, that's one thing but no society has ever come close to abolishing classes so we would be merely speculating; but when we speak of socialism, we definitely have to take into consideration that classes cannot be abolished instantly. So that means a system of class rule built by the working classes (under the leadership of the proletariat;"the state" or worker's state) is absolutely necessary in order to: A) combat inevitable counter-revolution, and suppress bourgeois, revisionist currents and influence among the political spectrum of a hypothetical worker's state, and B) to develop socialist production with the intent of one day, when the bourgeois are all but history, abolish classes all together.

The point is, with out completing this task of building a worker's state and laying down the foundations for working class rule first, there is absolutely no way a society can develop itself into one without class if bourgeois rule isn't effectively broken and utterly destroyed, and replaced by a system of based on the people's rule. .

This is what I call politics-by-numbers. Intone the correct slogan often enough (making sure, of course, that it tallies with the latest party line which is liable to change with every opportunist gust of wind) and you will evenutally come to believe it. It is mindless drivel.

Lets take just one of your points. Classes cannot be abolished instantly. What, pray, does this mean. I mean seriously what the hell does it mean? Does a class disappear like the famous cheshire cats grin? Can one find oneself to be only a little bit pregnant and getting less so with every passing day. Will the capitalist class be phased out in the next five year plan? Marx would have pissed himself laughing at such inanities. Did not the Communist Manifesto talk of communism being the most radical rupture with existing property relationships?

Do you think the law of value as well as commodity production simply cease to exist once the workers have seized power? You can't simply claim that because all production is commonly owned that the forces of production have developed to a point where scarcity has been eliminated and has ensured material abundance (in which case, essentially nobody has to pay for anything). But that was not the case with the Soviet Union or any other socialist state, because as powerful as some of those economies were they didn't develop production enough to be able to provide free access of material goods without a means of exchange; because that's how (scarcity) economics work, even in planned economies. .

The Soviet Union was never at any point in its history, socialist. It was an organised system of state capitalism as even Lenin conceded.

Do I think commodity production will cease once the working class seize power? Yes I do but I do not envisage the working class, have seized power, will continue thereafter to exist as a class. A genuine working class seizure of power entails the abolition of all classes including itself. In socialism or communism there will be no workers or capitalists, just people. These class categories will disappear - utterly. Anything short of this means you still have classes and hence capitalism however dressed up in socialist sounding rhetoric such as the so called workers state

Do I think that with common ownership material scarcity will be eliminated? No I dont or at least not entirely. Having said that I think you are little too prone to take for granted the dictum of bourgeois economics on the subject of scarcity without seeing how it is that caitalism creates and maintains scarcity (not least through the massive structural waste represented by its money-based occupations). But given the possibility that there might still be some genuine residual scarcity which a communist society will have to deal with this does not have to involve the retention of commodity production as Marx made perfectly clear in his Critique of the Gotha Programme. There he sharply differentiated between commodity production and a system of labour vouchers. I have reservations about the labour voucher scheme but I recognise it as something that completely transcends capitalism and its commodity basis

mykittyhasaboner

16th May 2009, 00:28

No, we couldn't. In order to argue that, I would have to accept the premise of a "worker's state", which I reject
OK.

Not the point.Then just what is your point?

I agree. How does "thus, we need to perpetuate capitalism" follow...? (Which is what Lenin's argument boils down to)Really? Would you mind elaborating on this position? I don't see how I'm arguing to perpetuate capitalism; neither did Lenin (but I'm sure think he did).

Surely you've chosen to ignore Marx's theories entirely except when they happen to correspond with your previously-held assumptions of the world.

Not today. Not ever.\
Yeah, yeah enough with all these accusations are you going to add anything to the discussion?

Representatives of different regions of the city, chosen through voting, got together and, through voting, made decisions. Again, how does that in any way resemble a "state" in the sense that the USSR, the PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, etc. are?Well because that's exactly what they do in Cuba. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1445113&postcount=29)

There were several different organs of proletarian class rule (at varying times during their existence) in the Soviet Union, and the PRC. But I digress; judging how other worker's states should look like, based on what a passed (and failed) worker's state looked like is kind of naive and anti-materialist.

I guess the Soviet Union only existed in my head, then....Clever!

Your perception of it does; "totalitarianism" is just completely bunk and is pretty much a lumping together of different theories and political positions into an ill defined category.

*Yawn* Typical Marxist-Leninist pedantry.*yawning myself* its contagious.

You're aware that saint Marx actually changed his positions, re-evaluated his evidence, and re-drew his conclusons between the time he wrote the Communist Manifesto and the time he wrote Critique of the Gotha Programme?Of course he did, but you would only say this to imply that he changed his position, and at one point no longer advocated a worker's state. So did he change this position? Please enlighten me.

Considering the two texts reach two profoundly different conclusions about this very subject, it's kind of telling that you chose to quote them side by side.Yes I did, because the entire premise of your initial argument was that my description of socialism "had nothing to do with the ideas of Marx"; yet obviously Marx himself (along with his good buddy Engels of course) are the ones who developed the modern perception of a worker's state.

Robbo:

I am afraid it is not me, but you ,who demonstrates a skewed perception of socialism. Historically, socialism at least in the Marxian tradition was more or less a synonym of communism. It was Lenin amongst others who departed radically from this tradition by identifying socialism as the "lower phase of communism" at one point and then confusingly calling it "state capitalism" run in the interests of the workers, at another. I am not a leninist so I dont go along with Lenin's - or your - definition of socialism anywaySemantics. :rolleyes:

On the subject of the so called "workers state" I put this question to you as I have to other leninists on this list - where is the logic behind the claim that the workers having made themselves into a ruling class would allow themselves to be continued to be exploited by the capitalist class they had just overthown?There is no logic in that, "Leninists" don't believe that.

Its just plain daft in my view. Because that is what is meant by working class. It is class category that signifies the exploited class in capitalism. By insisting that this self-evident poppycock on stilts called the "workers state" is what is meant by "socialism" what you really mean by that is that in "socialism", according to you, there will still be a working class exploited by a capitalist class because if there wasnt you couldnt possibly call it a "workers" state could you now? Duh. A workers state means there is a working class and by a working class is meant a majority class exploited by the capitalists. So a "workers state" is one which allows the continued exploitation of those in whose name it purportedly governsThe proletariat are exploited by the working class under a capitalist state. It is this class that essentially destroys the captialist state and creates a worker's state (socialism). Your perception is that once worker's have overthrown capitalists in a revolution, that classes simply cease to exist; that's a load of bullshit. First, revolutions don't usually happen on a global scale (at least not immediately) so there has to be a system of class rule based on giving power to the working and peasant classes; a worker's state. Socialism is not a classless society, because classes may have not been completely eliminated from society after an outright revolutionary seizure of the means of production by the workers. This was the case in every single socialist revolution in the past.

But trying to get a leninist to argue their way out this one is about as productive and useful as trying to fashion a meaningful artistic sculpture out of tub of cold jelly. All you will get is a load of irrelevant waffle that neatly evades the point
Blah, blah, blah, you should avoid posting useless comments.

This is what I call politics-by-numbers. Intone the correct slogan often enough (making sure, of course, that it tallies with the latest party line which is liable to change with every opportunist gust of wind) and you will evenutally come to believe it. It is mindless drivel.

Lets take just one of your points. Classes cannot be abolished instantly. What, pray, does this mean. I mean seriously what the hell does it mean? Does a class disappear like the famous cheshire cats grin? Can one find oneself to be only a little bit pregnant and getting less so with every passing day. Will the capitalist class be phased out in the next five year plan? Marx would have pissed himself laughing at such inanities. Did not the Communist Manifesto talk of communism being the most radical rupture with existing property relationships?Did you not just dance your way around my argument by typing inane comments and questions like this one?

Classes can't be abolished instantly, its as simple as that. You seem to expect there to be no class divisions left in society (even on a global scale) after a hypothetical workers revolution in one or multiple countries. How then, pray, does "everyone" simply own the means of production after a worker's revolution? What is the worker's revolution for in that case anyways? Is it to twiddle their thumbs and to stare into the sky?

In my opinion, the goal of a revolution should be to put the working class in power.

The Soviet Union was never at any point in its history, socialist. It was an organised system of state capitalism as even Lenin conceded.
A common judgment, but it lacks credibilty in all aspects if you ask me. Would you mind explaining how exactly you think "state capitalism" existed in the Soviet Union without private ownership of the means of production? Don't say something along the lines of "teh bureaucracy was a new capitalist class!" because that is complete nonsense, as no bureaucrat ever benefited personally by (really, not) exploiting labor. Except Gorbachev and Yeltsin, but they are ****s anyways.

Do I think commodity production will cease once the working class seize power? Yes I do but I do not envisage the working class, have seized power, will continue thereafter to exist as a class. A genuine working class seizure of power entails the abolition of all classes including itself. In socialism or communism there will be no workers or capitalists, just people. These class categories will disappear - utterly. Anything short of this means you still have classes and hence capitalism however dressed up in socialist sounding rhetoric such as the so called workers state What an idealist! They will abolish classes, there won't be anymore classes because the working class will abolish themselves? Ha, come on be a little realistic. What kind of programme would follow the lines of abolishing class altogether right after a worker's revolution (Keep in mind when we speak of revolution we are talking about one or two countries at a time, because there hasn't been and probably wont be a simultaneous gloabl socialist revolution)? There is still a need to defend your new socialist society with no classes from imperialism and other threats to worker's power right? How exactly would you do that?

Do I think that with common ownership material scarcity will be eliminated? No I dont or at least not entirely. Having said that I think you are little too prone to take for granted the dictum of bourgeois economics on the subject of scarcity without seeing how it is that caitalism creates and maintains scarcity (not least through the massive structural waste represented by its money-based occupations).Your right it absolutey does, but I'm not talking about scarcity in the way you pobably are. I'm talking about scarcity, meaning not post-scarcity; the Soviet Union was well on its way to developing a post-scarcity society, if it were left on the same track as it went before WW2 of course. When socialism is being developed, you have to work with what you have; meaning you can't just expect things to develop your way immediately. In order to manage trade and production in a society that was just developing its industrial base (the Soviet Union, but it developed at an alarming rate if a might add) you have to do so by means of exchage. Even though the worker's commonly own everything in society when they are in control of a worker's state; there still simply isn't the productive force to maintain a free-access gift economy.

In a more developed capitalist country, monetary systems of exchange would no doubt be present, but only until planning has reached a point where money has become superfluous.

But given the possibility that there might still be some genuine residual scarcity which a communist society will have to deal with this does not have to involve the retention of commodity production as Marx made perfectly clear in his Critique of the Gotha Programme. There he sharply differentiated between commodity production and a system of labour vouchers. I have reservations about the labour voucher scheme but I recognise it as something that completely transcends capitalism and its commodity basisI agree, but commodity production isn't solely bound to capitalism, it existed before it, and it does after it too. Commoditiy production in socialism is not the same fundamental commodities we know all to well about in capitalism. That is because in socialism, production doesn't revolve around commodoites, since there is no capitalist class to claim these commodities, they are owned (and produced) by the working class. This is especially true, again, in a system where industrial based production has not been fully developed.

Agrippa

16th May 2009, 00:46

OK.

Then just what is your point?

That Marx was not a Leninist. He was a libertarian.

Really? Would you mind elaborating on this position? I don't see how I'm arguing to perpetuate capitalism; neither did LeninWhat do capitalist societies have that the Soviet Union was lacking?
A central police? Yep.
A Clausewitzian military, with a hierarchy of officers? Yep.
Wage labor? Yep.
An administrative bureaucracy? Yep.
A mint? Yep.
Banks? Yep.
Ecocidal industrial mass-production? Yep.
Prisons? Yep.
Institutionalized education? Yep.
Wealth and poverty? Yep.

Well because that's exactly what they do in Cuba.The Paris Commune, to my knowledge, did not have a president-for-life...

There were several different organs of proletarian class rule (at varying times during their existence) in the Soviet Union, and the PRC.Incorrect. There were several different organs of bourgeois class rule (at varying times during their existence) in the Soviet Union, and the PRC....

judging how other worker's states should look like, based on what a passed (and failed) worker's state looked like is kind of naive and anti-materialist.Making a judgement of material reality is anti-materialist? Oh well, I'm not a materialist....

"totalitarianism" is just completely bunk and is pretty much a lumping together of different theories and political positions into an ill defined category. I use the term "totalitarian" loosely as a synonym for "capitalist".

Of course he did, but you would only say this to imply that he changed his position, and at one point no longer advocated a worker's state. So did he change this position? Please enlighten me. Have you read the Critique of the Gotha Programme?

obviously Marx himself (along with his good buddy Engels of course) are the ones who developed the modern perception of a worker's state.Marx "developed the modern perception of a worker's state" because, at one point, earlier in his history, he embraced reformist/Social Democratic politics, something many members of the International were guilty of at the time including Bakunin?

mykittyhasaboner

16th May 2009, 01:00

That Marx was not a Leninist. He was a libertarian.
Yippee! One for the libertarians, nice job. I doubt Marx would have cared what you want to call him; the quote "I am not a Marxist" comes to mind. He simply believed in the working classes emancipating themselves, by overthrowing the working class, and creating a new socialist society that would eventually abolish classes. If we are to call Marx anything, he would be a communist.

What do capitalist societies have that the Soviet Union was lacking?
Working class ownership of the means of production.

A central police? Yep.
A Clausewitzian military, with a hierarchy of officers? Yep.
Wage labor? Yep.
An administrative bureaucracy? Yep.
A mint? Yep.
Banks? Yep.
Ecocidal industrial mass-production? Yep.
Prisons? Yep.
Institutionalized education? Yep.
Wealth and poverty? Yep.
Great way to overly generalize your argument. Also a great way to make a fool out of yourself; you don't seriously expect me to want to debate someone who doesn't want to (or cant) form a proper argument, aimed at proving me wrong, do you?

The Paris Commune, to my knowledge, did not have a president-for-life...

Would have been a short life.

Good job at avoiding my argument.

Incorrect. There were several different organs of bourgeois class rule (at varying times during their existence) in the Soviet Union, and the PRC....
Again with the claims, but no support.

Making a judgement of material reality is anti-materialist? Oh well, I'm not a materialist....
Not surprising, because judging by your response, you have no idea what the word 'materialist' means. If you want to somehow grade a worker's state like the Soviet Union or PRC, based on what happened during the Paris Commune, you are running into so many walls that prevent you from logical thought that it is pointless for you to try. How can you completely disregard the fact that Russia or China were completely different societies in terms of development and class-relations, in comparison to Paris in 1871?

I use the term "totalitarian" loosely as a synonym for "capitalist".

You shouldn't.

Have you read the Critique of the Gotha Programme?
Not entirely.

Marx "developed the modern perception of a worker's state" because, at one point, earlier in his history, he embraced reformist/Social Democratic politics, something many members of the International were guilty of at the time including Bakunin?
Er, OK. So his theories on the working class overthrowing capitalism, is a product of his social democratic/reformist politics. Right, that makes sense.

Nwoye

16th May 2009, 01:23

the only justification i've seen here for state administrated wage labor is that it is necessary to achieve a political end. i don't really see how you could hold onto that argument while maintaining any shred of respect for individual liberty and freedom.

but that's just my opinion.

mykittyhasaboner

16th May 2009, 01:31

the only justification i've seen here for state administrated wage labor is that it is necessary to achieve a political end.
Well, yes of course it is to achieve a political end. But it isn't "wage labor" (where capitalists employ workers, who's wage is their means of living) in the sense that one class owns the means of production (capitalists), while another class labors over it (workers). Socialism on the other hand means that the working class owns the means of production through the state; so this "state administrated wage labor" is really just monetary value of wealth that the working class owns in common.

i don't really see how you could hold onto that argument while maintaining any shred of respect for individual liberty and freedom.
Why? I don't know how much more free workers and peasants can get besides owning and controlling the means of production.

but that's just my opinion.Thanks for sharing man.

Agrippa

16th May 2009, 01:40

If we are to call Marx anything, he would be a communist.

If Marx was a communist, then he must have believed in liberty...

Working class ownership of the means of production. You've basically admitted that the Soviet Union has nothing to do with communism, since communism is by definition the self-abolition of the working-class.

The workers did not own the means of production in the Soviet Union, the managers did....

Great way to overly generalize your argument.Some generalizations are appropriate; all water is wet, all cats are mammals, all societies of a certain nature are capitalist....

you don't seriously expect me to want to debate someone who doesn't want to (or cant) form a proper argument, aimed at proving me wrong, do you? What was improper about my argument? You just want to avoid answering it....

Would have been a short life. Would have been a short presidency. Did the Paris Commune ever have a president?

Good job at avoiding my argument. The argument that Marxist-Leninist Cuba bares any resemblance to to the Paris Commune is almost too absurd to address....

Again with the claims, but no support. Are you denying the existence of a Soviet bourgeoisie?

Not surprising, because judging by your response, you have no idea what the word 'materialist' means.I do, I'm just not one. Live with it.

If you want to somehow grade a worker's state like the Soviet Union or PRC, based on what happened during the Paris Commune, you are running into so many walls that prevent you from logical thought that it is pointless for you to try. How can you completely disregard the fact that Russia or China were completely different societies in terms of development and class-relations, in comparison to Paris in 1871?Perhaps. How does that justify state-capitalism?

You shouldn't. Why not?

Not entirely. Here's some highlights

Critique of the Gotha Programme[/I]"]
If useful labor is possible only in society and through society, the proceeds of labor belong to society -- and only so much therefrom accrues to the individual worker as is not required to maintain the "condition" of labor, society.

In fact, this proposition has at all times been made use of by the champions of the state of society prevailing at any given time. First comes the claims of the government and everything that sticks to it, since it is the social organ for the maintenance of the social order; then comes the claims of the various kinds of private property, for the various kinds of private property are the foundations of society, etc. One sees that such hollow phrases are the foundations of society, etc. One sees that such hollow phrases can be twisted and turned as desired.

Critique of the Gotha Programme[/I]"]
Instead of arising from the revolutionary process of transformation of society, the "socialist organization of the total labor" "arises" from the "state aid" that the state gives to the producers' co-operative societies and which the state, not the workers, "calls into being". It is worthy of Lassalle's imagination that with state loans one can build a new society just as well as a new railway!
From the remnants of a sense of shame, "state aid" has been put -- under the democratic control of the "toiling people".

Critique of the Gotha Programme[/I]"]

That the workers desire to establish the conditions for co-operative production on a social scale, and first of all on a national scale, in their own country, only means that they are working to revolutionize the present conditions of production, and it has nothing in common with the foundation of co-operative societies with state aid. But as far as the present co-operative societies are concerned, they are of value only insofar as they are the independent creations of the workers and not protégés either of the governments or of the bourgeois.

And in the one-liner you quoted, you left out Marx's conclusion

Nevertheless, the different states of the different civilized countries, in spite or their motley diversity of form, all have this in common: that they are based on modern bourgeois society, only one more or less capitalistically developed. They have, therefore, also certain essential characteristics in common. In this sense, it is possible to speak of the "present-day state" in contrast with the future, in which its present root, bourgeois society, will have died off.
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.
Now the program does not deal with this nor with the future state of communist society.
Its political demands contain nothing beyond the old democratic litany familiar to all: universal suffrage, direct legislation, popular rights, a people's militia, etc. They are a mere echo of the bourgeois People's party (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/orgs/p/e.htm#peoples-party), of the League of Peace and Freedom (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/orgs/l/e.htm#league-peace-freedom). They are all demands which, insofar as they are not exaggerated in fantastic presentation, have already been realized. Only the state to which they belong does not lie within the borders of the German Empire, but in Switzerland, the United States, etc. This sort of "state of the future" is a present-day state, although existing outside the "framework" of the German Empire. [...]
That, in fact, by the word "state" is meant the government machine, or the state insofar as it forms a special organism separated from society through division of labor, is shown by the words "the German Workers' party demands as the economic basis of the state: a single progressive income tax", etc. Taxes are the economic basis of the government machinery and of nothing else. In the state of the future, existing in Switzerland, this demand has been pretty well fulfilled. Income tax presupposes various sources of income of the various social classes, and hence capitalist society. It is, therefore, nothing remarkable that the Liverpool financial reformers — bourgeois headed by Gladstone's brother — are putting forward the same demand as the program.

He goes on to say

"Equal elementary education"? What idea lies behind these words? Is it believed that in present-day society (and it is only with this one has to deal) education can be equal for all classes? Or is it demanded that the upper classes also shall be compulsorily reduced to the modicum of education — the elementary school — that alone is compatible with the economic conditions not only of the wage-workers but of the peasants as well?
"Universal compulsory school attendance. Free instruction." The former exists even in Germany, the second in Switzerland and in the United States in the case of elementary schools. If in some states of the latter country higher education institutions are also "free", that only means in fact defraying the cost of education of the upper classes from the general tax receipts. Incidentally, the same holds good for "free administration of justice" demanded under A, 5. The administration of criminal justice is to be had free everywhere; that of civil justice is concerned almost exclusively with conflicts over property and hence affects almost exclusively the possessing classes. Are they to carry on their litigation at the expense of the national coffers?
This paragraph on the schools should at least have demanded technical schools (theoretical and practical) in combination with the elementary school.
"Elementary education by the state" is altogether objectionable. Defining by a general law the expenditures on the elementary schools, the qualifications of the teaching staff, the branches of instruction, etc., and, as is done in the United States, supervising the fulfillment of these legal specifications by state inspectors, is a very different thing from appointing the state as the educator of the people! Government and church should rather be equally excluded from any influence on the school. Particularly, indeed, in the Prusso-German Empire (and one should not take refuge in the rotten subterfuge that one is speaking of a "state of the future"; we have seen how matters stand in this respect) the state has need, on the contrary, of a very stern education by the people.
But the whole program, for all its democratic clang, is tainted through and through by the Lassallean sect's servile belief in the state, or, what is no better, by a democratic belief in miracles; or rather it is a compromise between these two kinds of belief in miracles, both equally remote from socialism.

Sound familiar?

Er, OK. So his theories on the working class overthrowing capitalism, is a product of his social democratic/reformist politics. Right, that makes sense.He didn't have social democratic/reformist politics throughout his entire life...

mykittyhasaboner

16th May 2009, 01:50

If Marx was a communist, then he must have believed in liberty...
Uh, sure.

You've basically admitted that the Soviet Union has nothing to do with communism, since communism is by definition the self-abolition of the working-class.
The Soviet Union wasn't a communist society. You aren't very good at strawmans.

The workers did not own the means of production in the Soviet Union, the managers did....Really? Then provide some evidence to support your claim. Even though I know you cant, because your claim is false, "managers" did not own the means of production and benefit from the exploitation of the working class.

Some generalizations are appropriate; all water is wet, all cats are mammals, all societies of a certain nature are capitalist....All of your posts so far have been avoiding argument. Yeah your right, some are appropriate.

What was improper about my argument? You just want to avoid answering it....What is their to answer?

Your one to talk about not answering arguments. :rolleyes::lol:

Would have been a short presidency. Did the Paris Commune ever have a president?No. What's the point though?

The argument that Marxist-Leninist Cuba bares any resemblance to to the Paris Commune is almost too absurd to address....Your right, the Cuban revolution was too successful, and lasted more than 2 months. You still haven't addressed any sources I've provided, but go an ahead and keep tip-toeing around it.

Are you denying the existence of a Soviet bourgeoisie?Yes, absolutely.

I do, I'm just not one. Live with it.Good luck developing a decent perception of socialism then.

Perhaps. How does that justify state-capitalism?It doesn't. Clearly, you've just used another strawman; as I have explained how "state capitalism" did not exist. I don't care whether or not you accept my explanation, but your just so keen to avoid debate that its getting redundant.

Why not? I don't know, and why do you care?

He didn't have social democratic/reformist politics throughout his entire life...
You don't make one bit of sense.

Nwoye

16th May 2009, 01:58

Well, yes of course it is to achieve a political end. But it isn't "wage labor" (where capitalists employ workers, who's wage is their means of living) in the sense that one class owns the means of production (capitalists), while another class labors over it (workers). Socialism on the other hand means that the working class owns the means of production through the state; so this "state administrated wage labor" is really just monetary value of wealth that the working class owns in common.

well i understand the distinction between capitalism and socialism. however i don't see such a distinction (from an individual standpoint) between private property or labor collectivized in the state.

to be more illustrative: i don't see a difference between selling your labor to a landlord and selling your labor to the state.

Why? I don't know how much more free workers and peasants can get besides owning and controlling the means of production.
i meant simply contradicting your ethical values to achieve a political end.

mykittyhasaboner

16th May 2009, 02:06

well i understand the distinction between capitalism and socialism. however i don't see such a distinction (from an individual standpoint) between private property or labor collectivized in the state.

to be more illustrative: i don't see a difference between selling your labor to a landlord and selling your labor to the state.
From an individual stand point, its certainly different because there is no exploitation going on. Socialism means workers own the means of production through a worker's state. Worker's don't sell their labor to a worker's state, because they are what make up the state. Proletarians receive the full value of their labor in socialist system, because there is no surplus value or anything like that being kept by a capitalist class.

Cumannach summarized this better earlier in this very thread:

After the proletariat seize state power and after they then transfer all the means of production from private ownership, into public ownership, that is, proletariat ownership, they are no longer selling their labour-power as a commodity, since they own means of production and do not have to sell it to survive.

They own the means of production, and when they use them, they are using their own property, which means they own the product they produce, and receive the full value of the product of their labour in their paycheck minus the expenses needed to run their state (taxes). In this case, the country is still using purchase and sale with money for the exchange of goods among the people, and the workers will have to be paid money for their labour in money. This is what the wage system is in socialism until the money system of exchange is replaced.

It's fundamentally different from the wage system in capitalism, where the workers don't own the means of production, and don't therefore own the product of their labour, and are paid less than the value of the product they produce.

So a wage system under socialism is not the same as a wage system under capitalism.

i meant simply contradicting your ethical values to achieve a political end.What ethical values? Getting paid (in full) for your labor is an ethical value is it not? That's exactly what were talking about achieving.

Nwoye

16th May 2009, 02:19

what is the difference between taxes and surplus value?

Agrippa

16th May 2009, 02:22

Uh, sure.

Then he was by definition a libertarian

The Soviet Union wasn't a communist society.

But it was allegedly supposed to lead to communism. That's the point, remember?

Really? Then provide some evidence to support your claim.Even though I know you cant, because your claim is false, "managers" did not own the means of production and benefit from the exploitation of the working class.

If the working-class controlled the means of production, they would not be a working class. They would not be selling their labor to a factory-manager, and would not be earning a wage.

If you really want to learn more I suggest this as a start:
http://www.geocities.com/~Johngray/bolsh01.htm

What is their to answer?

How was any aspect of the Soviet political or economic order in control of the workers when it had an administrative class, including a national parliament, (for one of the largest political territories in human history, with thousands of unique ethnic groups) a monetary system of wage-value, managers, bosses, police, prisons, etc.?

No. What's the point though?

The point was that the Paris Commune is a commune and post-revolutionary Cuba is a capitalist state with a president, a bourgeoisie, a Clausewitzian army, a police force, prisons, etc. Two different things

Your right, the Cuban revolution was too successful, and lasted more than 2 months.

No. The Cuban Revolution, to my knowledge, only lasted weeks before it was crushed and co-opted by the Leninist "vanguard", who imposed a (very successful) bourgeois dictatorship.

You still haven't addressed any sources I've provided

They didn't merit any addressing. I clicked on the first one and it read like something that would be written by the Cuban tourist bureau....

Yes, absolutely.

Wow. You're beyond help.

Do you think all those people in the politboro had to work on farm collectives or something?

Good luck developing a decent perception of socialism then.

it is my not being a materialist that gives me a decent perception of socialism, namely, my perception of it as bourgeois rubbish.

as I have explained how "state capitalism" did not exist.

Wait, when did you explain that? You've yet to offer a coherent explanation as to how the Soviet Union was not capitalist.

I don't know

You don't make one bit of sense.

When Marx was younger he had lots of naive ideas about nationalization of banks, industries, etc. as a progressive step to communism. He got more radical as he got older.

If you think I am dodging the question, it's because I'm choosing to place the burden of proof on you. The burden of proof is on the believer of God to present evidence of the disbeliever. You are the believer of the Soviet Union and the PRC as workers states. Where's the proof?

mykittyhasaboner

16th May 2009, 02:24

what is the difference between taxes and surplus value?
Taxes are invested towards running the state.

Surplus value, generally being the money that capitalists put in their pockets, is basically profit.

Nwoye

16th May 2009, 02:35

Taxes are invested towards running the state.

Surplus value, generally being the money that capitalists put in their pockets, is basically profit.
well yes there's the obvious semantic difference. but what is the ethical or philosophical difference? i mean both are instances of an outside force asserting its force on my labor and taking it from my possession.

that's assuming the validity of the theory of surplus value but whatever.

SocialismOrBarbarism

16th May 2009, 02:41

well yes there's the obvious semantic difference. but what is the ethical or philosophical difference? i mean both are instances of an outside force asserting its force on my labor and taking it from my possession.

that's assuming the validity of the theory of surplus value but whatever.

Workers do not have control of surplus value, capitalists do, and it's used to provide for the expansion of capital. In socialism "taxes" are used to provide for public services under the control of the workers. How can the working class exploit itself?

Agrippa

16th May 2009, 02:51

Workers do not have control of surplus value, capitalists do, and it's used to provide for the expansion of capital. In socialism "taxes" are used to provide for public services under the control of the workers. How can the working class exploit itself?

Because they don't actually control how the taxes are spent....

mykittyhasaboner

16th May 2009, 03:03

Then he was by definition a libertarian
Congratulations.

But it was allegedly supposed to lead to communism. That's the point, remember?

The Soviet Union couldn't achieve communism by itself, communism is a global system. So don't go assigning the responsibility onto the Soviet Union for not leading up to communism.

If the working-class controlled the means of production, they would not be a working class. They would not be selling their labor to a factory-manager, and would not be earning a wage.
If the working class owned and controlled the means of production the working class would simply be the ruling class of society, that is until their worker's state is destroyed or classes have been globally abolished.

If you really want to learn more I suggest this as a start:
http://www.geocities.com/~Johngray/bolsh01.htm (http://www.geocities.com/%7EJohngray/bolsh01.htm)

That is the worst attempt at substantiating your arguments yet. The document provides no sources for their information, and it puts the old argument forward that the Soviet Union was somehow "fascist". What bullshit.

How was any aspect of the Soviet political or economic order in control of the workers when it had an administrative class, including a national parliament, (for one of the largest political territories in human history, with thousands of unique ethnic groups) a monetary system of wage-value, managers, bosses, police, prisons, etc.?
They were in control because the working class owned the means of production. I have already proven how this "monetary system of wage-value" is not capitalist at all; "managers" don't own property so they aren't capitalists. And if you think that police and prisons aren't inherently capitalist either. Your just arguing in circles now, I've already proven how all these things ("managers", police, "system of wage-value") are all elements of a worker's state.

The point was that the Paris Commune is a commune and post-revolutionary Cuba is a capitalist state with a president, a bourgeoisie, a Clausewitzian army, a police force, prisons, etc. Two different things

Your point is absolutely false, because you have no idea what your talking about. You won't prove that Cuba is a capitalist state, because it isn't; so don't try.

No. The Cuban Revolution, to my knowledge, only lasted weeks before it was crushed and co-opted by the Leninist "vanguard", who imposed a (very successful) bourgeois dictatorship.

Again, more baseless claims.

They didn't merit any addressing. I clicked on the first one and it read like something that would be written by the Cuban tourist bureau....
Really? So evidence proving that Cuba is a worker's state, essentially proving that all of your claims are absurd doesn't need your addressing? Your pathetic.

Wow. You're beyond help.

Do you think all those people in the politboro had to work on farm collectives or something?

it is my not being a materialist that gives me a decent perception of socialism, namely, my perception of it as bourgeois rubbish.

Lol. Socialism is bourgeois rubbish huh?

Wait, when did you explain that? You've yet to offer a coherent explanation as to how the Soviet Union was not capitalist.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1445346&postcount=39

When Marx was younger he had lots of naive ideas about nationalization of banks, industries, etc. as a progressive step to communism. He got more radical as he got older.
Another non-argument.

If you think I am dodging the question, it's because I'm choosing to place the burden of proof on you.
Why I have explained my positions numerous times, and I have cited evidence for my reasoning behind Cuba being a worker's state. Which you have simply ignored.

The burden of proof is on the believer of God to present evidence of the disbeliever. You are the believer of the Soviet Union and the PRC as workers states. Where's the proof?
What a gross comparison.

(http://web.grinnell.edu/individuals/kaiser/revolt.html) (http://web.grinnell.edu/individuals/kaiser/revolt.html)

Agrippa

16th May 2009, 03:29

The Soviet Union couldn't achieve communism by itself, communism is a global system. So don't go assigning the responsibility onto the Soviet Union for not leading up to communism.

That is so profoundly fatuous.

That is essentially the same argument as "It's not my fault I'm an alcoholic because other people are alcoholics too! I'll stop when they do!"

If the working class owned and controlled the means of production the working class would simply be the ruling class of society, that is until their worker's state is destroyed or classes have been globally abolished.

When does that happen? When Jesus comes down from heaven with a flaming sword?

The document provides no sources for their information

Unhhh....that document is a historical source.

and it puts the old argument forward that the Soviet Union was somehow "fascist". What bullshit.

Wrong. Did you read the article or skim it?

His arrgument was that fascism and Leninism, while totally different ideologies, used the same tactics. On the contrary to arguing that Leninism was a form of fascism, he argues that the fascists in many ways emulated the Leninists.

"managers" don't own property so they aren't capitalists.

Ugh! Have you read any Marx? If everyone who owned property was a capitalist, peasants would be capitalists.

You won't prove that Cuba is a capitalist state

I can't because your definitions of capitalism and communism seem to be incoherent....

I mean, considering that there's virtually no difference between Cuba and any other welfare state capitalist regime, such as Sweden or Norway, other than the red flags and busts of Marx, what other proof do you need?

Again, more baseless claims.

Have you read any historical sources regarding the Cuban revolution that weren't written by Guevarists and Castroites?

Really? So evidence proving that Cuba is a worker's state, essentially proving that all of your claims are absurd doesn't need your addressing? Your pathetic.

All your links provide "evidence" of is that Cuba has a municipal system in which people vote on issues. Just like the US. Just like any democratic system of capitalist rule. Big fucking deal. It's not communism, it's not close to communism. It's democratic shit. Get over it.

Lol. Socialism is bourgeois rubbish huh?

Duh. Case in point, the Soviet Union.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1445346&postcount=39

That failed to meet my criteria for "coherent". "From an individual stand point, its certainly different because there is no exploitation going on." You need to provide evidence for an absurdity of such perportions. Are all the people who claim to be exploited by the Soviet union lying? "Socialism means workers own the means of production through a worker's state." Once again, where's the evidence? Where's the vidence that the workers controlled the state? Being given the oppertunity to vote on certain issues does not make the workers in any more control of the USSR than they are the US or the UK. "Worker's don't sell their labor to a worker's state, because they are what make up the state." Even if that were true, I can still sell, for example, real estate I own, to a company that I also own stocks in. Thus, you've failed to prove that "workers don't sell their labor", ignoring the elephant in the room, which is "they [the workers] are what make up the [Soviet] state", which is total bolognia.

SocialismOrBarbarism

16th May 2009, 04:35

Because they don't actually control how the taxes are spent....

What are you talking about?

mikelepore

16th May 2009, 06:07

Also, if you think Marx never emphasized his position that a worker's state is necessary for socialism to develop, think again:

"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State..." - The Communist Manifesto

The manifesto, 1848, says that the objective of doing that is "to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible", a remark about a situation of economic underdevelopment in Europe which Marx and Engels concluded was already obsolete by 1872 when they wrote a new preface to the manifesto to retract that section of it. The remnants of feudalism having vanished and the mechanized production level problem having been sufficiently solved, there is no longer any reason for classes to continue to exist for a single more day after the political and industrial organizations of socialism have acquired power.

robbo203

16th May 2009, 09:03

Cumannach

16th May 2009, 11:59

Invariance

16th May 2009, 12:21

The manifesto, 1848, says that the objective of doing that is "to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible", a remark about a situation of economic underdevelopment in Europe which Marx and Engels concluded was already obsolete by 1872 when they wrote a new preface to the manifesto to retract that section of it. The remnants of feudalism having vanished and the mechanized production level problem having been sufficiently solved, there is no longer any reason for classes to continue to exist for a single more day after the political and industrial organizations of socialism have acquired power. This might be true, if Marx didn't say the exact opposite in the Preface to the Russian Edition of the Manifesto in 1882:
The Communist Manifesto had, as its object, the proclamation of the inevitable impending dissolution of modern bourgeois property. But in Russia we find, face-to-face with the rapidly flowering capitalist swindle and bourgeois property, just beginning to develop, more than half the land owned in common by the peasants. Now the question is: can the Russian obshchina, though greatly undermined, yet a form of primeaval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership? Or, on the contrary, must it first pass through the same process of dissolution such as constitutes the historical evolution of the West?

The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development.
Of course, Marx wrote:
However much that state of things may have altered during the last twenty-five years, the general principles laid down in the Manifesto are, on the whole, as correct today as ever. Here and there, some detail might be improved. The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended organization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole months, this programme has in some details been antiquated. One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that "the working class cannot simply lay hold of ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes." (See The Civil War in France: Address of the General Council of the International Working Men's Assocation (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1864iwma/1871-cwf/index.htm), 1871, where this point is further developed.) Further, it is self-evident that the criticism of socialist literature is deficient in relation to the present time, because it comes down only to 1847; also that the remarks on the relation of the Communists to the various opposition parties (Section IV), although, in principle still correct, yet in practice are antiquated, because the political situation has been entirely changed, and the progress of history has swept from off the earth the greater portion of the political parties there enumerated.
in 1872, but that wasn't a concession, as you claim that "remnants of feudalism having vanished and the mechanized production level problem having been sufficiently solved" which would be factually wrong anyway.

Nwoye

16th May 2009, 13:09

What are you talking about?
the Marx quote i was originally addressing was this:
If useful labor is possible only in society and through society, the proceeds of labor belong to society -- and only so much therefrom accrues to the individual worker as is not required to maintain the "condition" of labor, society.
What Marx is saying here is that you get back from society whatever part of your labor is left over from fulfilling the interest of the rest of society. Now in this instance, consider society as the state, as we understand the theory of the lower level of communism. Under this theory, I'm working for the state, and receiving back only a portion of my labor, a portion which is not determined by me and which may or may not be enough to support me.

How is that any different then selling your labor to landlord or a capitalist?

robbo203

16th May 2009, 15:24

Robbo:
Semantics. :rolleyes:
.

Precisely so. your leninist semantics are at variance with the traditional Marxian semantics of socialism

The proletariat are exploited by the working class under a capitalist state. It is this class that essentially destroys the captialist state and creates a worker's state (socialism). Your perception is that once worker's have overthrown capitalists in a revolution, that classes simply cease to exist; that's a load of bullshit. First, revolutions don't usually happen on a global scale (at least not immediately) so there has to be a system of class rule based on giving power to the working and peasant classes; a worker's state. Socialism is not a classless society, because classes may have not been completely eliminated from society after an outright revolutionary seizure of the means of production by the workers. This was the case in every single socialist revolution in the past..

Setting aside our semantic differences - I contest your claim that there has ever been a single socialist revolution or that in socialism, classes continue to exist - this still leaves the problem I pointed to which preditably you have not been able to address. If, according to you, classes still exist in socialism this means there is still a working class and therefore that this working class is EXPLOITED because that is the nature of the working class - it is the exploited class whereas the capitalist class which you say will not have disappeared in socialism will continue to be exploiting the working class. That is the nature of the capitalist class

Now stop pussyfooting around and andswer a direct question for a change Are you saying that the so called workers state is going to condone the continued exploitation of the workers (in whose name it has supposedly been set up) by the capitalists it supposedly had just ovethrown. . Please give me a simple answer . Yes or no. Is your so called socialist workers state going to actively connive with the capitalists in the exploitation of the workers. Yes or No

Classes can't be abolished instantly, its as simple as that. You seem to expect there to be no class divisions left in society (even on a global scale) after a hypothetical workers revolution in one or multiple countries. How then, pray, does "everyone" simply own the means of production after a worker's revolution? What is the worker's revolution for in that case anyways? Is it to twiddle their thumbs and to stare into the sky? ..

If classes are not abolished then you have not yet had a "workers revolution". Its as simple as that. It means that you still have a class based society - capitalism - based on the division of society in a working class (the exploited class) and a capitalist class (the exploiting class).

There is only one logical rational way out of all this and that is that the capture of political power by the working class signifies AT THE SAME TIME the ends of all class division. The communist movement is a worldwide movement. By the time communism otr socialism is enacted in one part of the world this would imply it would not be very long in coming to other parts of the world. THAT is where conceivably a small time lag may arise but NOT in democratic capture of power by the workers in one country and the instititionalisation of socialist/communist relations of production there. Of course, socialism cannot exist in one country alone but as I said what we are talking is a relatively very short period in which one country after another succumbs to a working class revolutuion in comparatively quick sucession

A common judgment, but it lacks credibilty in all aspects if you ask me. Would you mind explaining how exactly you think "state capitalism" existed in the Soviet Union without private ownership of the means of production? Don't say something along the lines of "teh bureaucracy was a new capitalist class!" because that is complete nonsense, as no bureaucrat ever benefited personally by (really, not) exploiting labor. Except Gorbachev and Yeltsin, but they are ****s anyways. ..

I have explained this to you and others on this list many times before but its not sinking in is it? It is not vital to capitalism that there should be de jure legal ownership of capital by private individuals. This is a bourgeois concept of what capitalism is about. Marxists do not hold this narrow legalistic notion of capitalism. We look at what holds on the ground - the de facto situation. In the Soviet Union the state largely owned the means of production but who owned state property? Certainly not the workers. The ownership of state property is decisively predicated on the question of who controls the state itself and makes all the important economic decisions. It was a tiny section of the population - the nomenklatura, the bosses of state firms, the military top brass - who basically controlled the state and who therefore collectively as a class owned the property of the state (trying separating "ownership" from "control" - it can't be done - the one is an aspect of the other). The Soviet capitalist class collectively exploted the Soviet workers and created one of the most unequal capitalist societies on the face of the earth. By the 1950s there were reputedly hundreds of rouble millionaires among the ruling elite which a publication (I think) called Russia Today (I can track down the exact source if needed) actually took pride in boasting about. There was always inequality from the the beginning but under Stalin in the 1930s the old Boshevik policy of wage levelling was completely abandoned while Stalin himself railed against the "evil of equality". The Soviet fat cats pocketed surplus value collectively as a class not just through the camouflage of bloated salaries but arguably more signifianctly via a huge array of perks. They even had their own private shops stocking western goodies from which ordinary Russian workers were barred entry. And there are still naive people like you who continue to think that the Soviet Union was not a massively exploitative unequal society. The mind just boggles.

What an idealist! They will abolish classes, there won't be anymore classes because the working class will abolish themselves? Ha, come on be a little realistic. What kind of programme would follow the lines of abolishing class altogether right after a worker's revolution (Keep in mind when we speak of revolution we are talking about one or two countries at a time, because there hasn't been and probably wont be a simultaneous gloabl socialist revolution)? There is still a need to defend your new socialist society with no classes from imperialism and other threats to worker's power right? How exactly would you do that? ..

Before you start calling other people idealist do a bit of serious thinking for a change rather than just regurgitating slogans. If the working class is not going to abolish itself as a class then how exactly are you proposing that a classless soceity might come into being. Think about this carefully before firing of another dud answer. I have already answrered the point about a simultaneous global socialist revolution. I dont think this essential for the thesis to hold proivding we can expect other parts of the world to follow in relatively quick succession. Mass communist consciousness in one part of the world implies mass communist consciousness elsewhere. Capitalist society will by then have its back to the wall, its ideological hold on the masses greatly enfeebled. If anything capitalist political parties will be falling over each other to curry favour with the workers. Do you seriously imagine in these circumnstances an attempted imperialist onslaught will have any real backing. Not even the capitalists would have the stomach or will for it. What would be the point anyway. Whewhbn the state capitalist regimes of Eastern Europe fell one by one, their old ruling classes could do nothing to stop this relentless process. How much more so would this be the case when we have a genuine communist revolutuion

Your right it absolutey does, but I'm not talking about scarcity in the way you pobably are. I'm talking about scarcity, meaning not post-scarcity; the Soviet Union was well on its way to developing a post-scarcity society, if it were left on the same track as it went before WW2 of course. When socialism is being developed, you have to work with what you have; meaning you can't just expect things to develop your way immediately. In order to manage trade and production in a society that was just developing its industrial base (the Soviet Union, but it developed at an alarming rate if a might add) you have to do so by means of exchage. Even though the worker's commonly own everything in society when they are in control of a worker's state; there still simply isn't the productive force to maintain a free-access gift economy.

..

It is a complete contradiction to maintain that the workers" commonly own
everything in society" and yet insist on a "means of exchange". Exchange implies the absense of common ownership; it implies sectional or class ownership of the means of production. If you owned something what possible reason would there be for paying for it? The fact that you pay for it shows that you do not own it. This is commonsense.

In a more developed capitalist country, monetary systems of exchange would no doubt be present, but only until planning has reached a point where money has become superfluous.

I agree, but commodity production isn't solely bound to capitalism, it existed before it, and it does after it too. Commoditiy production in socialism is not the same fundamental commodities we know all to well about in capitalism. That is because in socialism, production doesn't revolve around commodoites, since there is no capitalist class to claim these commodities, they are owned (and produced) by the working class. This is especially true, again, in a system where industrial based production has not been fully developed.

I agree that commodity production is not restricted to capitalism and that capitalismn is the most developed form of commodity production. As Marx says in the opening paragraph of Das Capital the wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production exists presents itself as an immense accummulation of commodities.

However societies other than capitalism where commodity production existed were PRE-CAPITALIST societies. Capitalism is the culmination or the highest form of commodity production. To suggest that a POST-CAPITALIST society could in any way be connected with commodity production is utterly absurd. You cannot say as Stalin did that a socialist society can have commodities becuase not only capitalism has commodities.. This is a total distortion of marxism. The commodification process culimnates in capitalism and beyond that there is nor and cannot be commodity production which is why the Communist Manifesto talked of the "communistic abolition of buying and selling". In other words the end of commodity production

ZeroNowhere

16th May 2009, 16:19

Now stop pussyfooting around and andswer a direct question for a change Are you saying that the so called workers state is going to condone the continued exploitation of the workers (in whose name it has supposedly been set up) by the capitalists it supposedly had just ovethrown. . Please give me a simple answer . Yes or no. Is your so called socialist workers state going to actively connive with the capitalists in the exploitation of the workers. Yes or No
I think we have our answer to that, "The political rule of the producer cannot co-exist with the perpetuation of his social slavery. The Commune was therefore to serve as a lever for uprooting the economical foundation upon which rests the existence of classes, and therefore of class rule. With labor emancipated, every man becomes a working man, and productive labor ceases to be a class attribute." While yes, you can certainly have a workers' revolution while classes continue to exist, after the revolutionary process is complete, you ain't got no class. And, of course, the class rule of the proletariat "means that the proletariat, instead of struggling sectionally against the economically privileged class, has attained a sufficient strength and organization to employ general means of coercion in this struggle. It can however only use such economic means as abolish its own character as salariat, hence as class. With its complete victory its own rule thus also ends, as its class character has disappeared." So presumably if the bourgeoisie were already overthrown, this would not be especially necessary.

Setting aside our semantic differences - I contest your claim that there has ever been a single socialist revolution
To be fair, the Spanish Revolution may match the criteria for 'socialist revolution'.