Could there be more stages between capitalism and socialism that Marx Didnt Predict?

[Outinleftfield]

For the most part he accurately documented history but what made him think capitalism would give way to socialism and communism? How do we know capitalism isn't supposed to give way to another system of exploitation and then socialism and communism, or maybe two or three different systems of exploitation? Maybe it just goes on forever?

I could imagine someone in the feudal era who is unusually educated for his station to create a similar theory and though wrong he probably would've predicted the peasants taking over society and holding the land and wealth equally rather than predicting capitalism. Naturally if a person desires something good they're going to predict that they're in the last stage before that good rather than that there is more misery to go. You'd want to be able to think that you stand some chance of seeing your prefered society form. At this point many of you will point out that Marx predicted a transitional stage so he couldn't have believed he would live to see communism. Still the way he describes socialism is that society is run by the workers. Exploitation is pretty much gone save for the police arresting people plotting to violating overthrow socialism and bring back capitalism.

Could there be additional stages between capitalism and socialism and what would they look like?

[RHIZOMES]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_capitalism

[Niccolò Rossi]

For the most part he accurately documented history but what made him think capitalism would give way to socialism and communism? How do we know capitalism isn't supposed to give way to another system of exploitation and then socialism and communism, or maybe two or three different systems of exploitation? Maybe it just goes on forever?

Unlike previous revolutions which replaced one form of exploitation for another, capitalism is the first mode of production where the revolutionary class in society is also an exploited class. Unlike revolutionary classes in the past, the proletariat has no exploitative relations of production to impose. The premise of the emancipation of labour is its alienation. Thus, Marx and Engels in their 1844 Holy Family write:
"Since in the fully-formed proletariat the abstraction of all humanity, even of the semblance of humanity, is practically complete; since the conditions of life of the proletariat sum up all the conditions of life of society today in their most inhuman form; since man has lost himself in the proletariat, yet at the same time has found not only theoretical consciousness of that loss, but through urgent, no longer removable, no longer disguisable, absolutely imperative need – the practical expression of necessity – is driven to revolt against this inhumanity, it follows that the proletariat can and must emancipate itself. But it cannot emancipate itself without abolishing the conditions of its own life. It cannot abolish the conditions of its own life without abolishing all the inhuman conditions of life which are summed up in its own situation."

I could imagine someone in the feudal era who is unusually educated for his station to create a similar theory and though wrong he probably would've predicted the peasants taking over society and holding the land and wealth equally rather than predicting capitalism.

There were in fact 'communists' at the time that did. At that stage in history however, communism was not on the agenda of history. Capitalism has created, for the first time in history, the material basis for communism, namely the massive development of the means of production to a level where the abolition of scarcity is now a possibility. This is why today, the crises of capitalist decadence* (the point at which the social relations of production come into permanent conflict with, and thus fetter, the development of the means of production) manifest themselves as crises of overproduction, contrasted with the chronic underproduction it meant in previous epochs.


Could there be additional stages between capitalism and socialism and what would they look like?

The only group that I know of to seriously suggest this were those who broke from Trotskyism over the theory of Bureaucratic Collectivism. According to this theory the USSR (and later 'socialist states') and the fascist states were neither capitalist nor socialist but a third system (Bureaucratic Collectivist). Some controversy surrounded the position regarding whether this new mode of production was a progressive system which would generalise itself internationally, replacing capitalism. The only group which continues to accept this analysis that I know of today is the AWL (Alliance for Workers' Liberty).

* Something I would argue was announced definitively by WWI, contrary to the faddish theories of 'late capitalism' which see capitalism's moribundity manifested following the post-war boom.

[ZeroNowhere]

Maybe it just goes on forever?Well, if the human race can survive forever. Which is possible, since by the time the sun gets bored of us, we may well be able to survive that.


the point at which the social relations of production come into permanent conflict with, and thus fetter, the development of the means of productionGerald Cohen would be proud.

[yuon]

Marx and Marxists after him, have argued like Niccolò Rossi has above, that because the proletariat, the revolutionary class, is also exploited, that when they revolt, the next society will be one where for the first time in history a majority of the population will be in control.

Me, here I am thinking that maybe it isn't possible for a majority of people to rule in any meaningful sense. If you do get a new state, with people claiming to rule on behalf of the working class, you'll just as soon end up with a new minority ruling class. (Sensible Marxists don't want a state as we generally think of them now though, and have explained that a proletariat state won't look anything like current states. That's cool.)

So, anyway, what about a "state socialist" system? Where there is a small technocratic (used in the Wellian (i.e. HG Wells) sense) ruling class who centralise the organisation of the economy. It wouldn't be capitalist, because there would be no profit extraction happening. In some ways I could suggest such a system would be worse than capitalism.

*Shrug*, but then again, whoever said that history was progressive?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=7509&stc=1&d=1255336837

[Niccolò Rossi]

So, anyway, what about a "state socialist" system? Where there is a small technocratic (used in the Wellian (i.e. HG Wells) sense) ruling class who centralise the organisation of the economy. It wouldn't be capitalist, because there would be no profit extraction happening. In some ways I could suggest such a system would be worse than capitalism.

The 'socialist states' were capitalist. I think anarchist 'theories' of 'state socialism' as being a 'third system' (neither capitalist nor socialist) are completely incoherent, like bureaucratic collectivist theories.

What is your opinion about state capitalist theories as descriptions of the 'socialist states'? What about them do you disagree with? What is the basis for your analysis of 'state socialism' (ie. is there a work or author we can refer to on the subject, in your opinion?)

[ZeroNowhere]

Me, here I am thinking that maybe it isn't possible for a majority of people to rule in any meaningful sense.So if the proletariat were to take political power and use this to expropriate the expropriators (eg. by outlawing capitalist property), they couldn't be said to be ruling in 'any meaningful sense'?


*Shrug*, but then again, whoever said that history was progressive?Presumably somebody who then clarified what they meant.

[Pogue]

Socialism isn't a system or abstract game. There'll be a revolution and then we'll try to work towards communism if things go well. Who can say excactly what things will look like, thats absurd.

[yuon]

The 'socialist states' were capitalist. I think anarchist 'theories' of 'state socialism' as being a 'third system' (neither capitalist nor socialist) are completely incoherent, like bureaucratic collectivist theories.

What is your opinion about state capitalist theories as descriptions of the 'socialist states'? What about them do you disagree with? What is the basis for your analysis of 'state socialism' (ie. is there a work or author we can refer to on the subject, in your opinion?)

Just to be clear, I was talking about a hypothetical socialist state, rather than a previously existing one. (HG Well's The Shape of Things to Come[/i] was sort of what I was thinking, a technocratic elite controlling production. Not having wages, and having everything "free" would be characteristic of such a "socialist" system as well.)

As for what I think about the notion of "state capitalism", it isn't an area I've looked into in any depth. However, if the state is exacting "profit" from the work of the workers, it isn't a socialist state is it. The reason I haven't looked at state capitalism ideas much is because it doesn't mean much to me. I don't need to defend or justify the USSR (for example), nor do I need to defend or justify the Bolsheviks. I don't need to explain why the perfectly good ideas of the Bolsheviks got turned into shit after a generation either.

I can sit back, confident in the knowledge that anarchist conceptions of power adequately explain the problems, and explain why things turned out how they did. Power, that nebulous notion, explains the concentration of power away from the soviets into the hands of the new state.

Anyway, just for the purpose of this post, I looked up what is meant by "state capitalism". An example of the stuff I looked at include [url=http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1936/dictatorship.htm]this piece by Anton Pannekoek, State Capitalism and Dictatorship (http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/w/wells/hg/w45th/).


Now, as I understand "state capitalism" (from my previous limited understanding, and my current (slightly) broader understanding), it is quite different from real capitalism, and it would be correct to classify it as a different economic structure. Having a state monopoly on all or even most types of production will produce a radically different outcome compared to a system where competition "rules". This can obviously be seen in countries like the USSR, and even the fascist counties (where admittedly the state didn't "own" the corporations, but certainly they directed the economy in a much more interventionist way than capitalist countries tend to).

However, what I think is not the only anarchist thoughts on the matter. Indeed, some people who know a lot more about such matters have written about it in An Anarchist FAQ, particularly section H.3.13 Why is state socialism just state capitalism? (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH3.html#sech313). Here they argue that because exploitation is the same under both the current system of capitalism, and any "state capitalism", that both are capitalism.

Anarchists are opposed to all three systems described by the term "state capitalism." Here we concentrate on the third definition, arguing that state socialism would be better described as "state capitalism" as state ownership of the means of life does not get to the heart of capitalism, namely wage labour. Rather it simply replaces private bosses with the state and changes the form of property (from private to state property) rather than getting rid of it.

The only answer I have to that is that under feudalism exploitation and wage labour occurred as well, but we don't claim that as capitalism.

So, these hypothetical states aren't capitalist according to me, and they aren't really socialist (because of the inequalities in power), they must be a "third" system. I can't really be fucked putting any more effort into this, I hope it is, at least somewhat, coherent.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=7509&stc=1&d=1255336837

[yuon]

Me, here I am thinking that maybe it isn't possible for a majority of people to rule in any meaningful sense. So if the proletariat were to take political power and use this to expropriate the expropriators (eg. by outlawing capitalist property), they couldn't be said to be ruling in 'any meaningful sense'?

What does it mean for "the proletariat ... to take political power"? Does it simply mean that they will elect, from their membership, representatives to rule for them? If that is the case, it is a minority taking power, in the name of the majority.

What I meant, was in a state like we are used to today, there is no way for a majority to rule. If, of course, and I said this, you want a different system, perhaps some collection of soviets or workers councils, or similar, it would be possible to get true "majority rule". With all the problems that that implies. But I'm sure it would be damn well better than trying to claim the majority is ruling a state (in the anarchist sense), when it is obvious the majority isn't.

Anyway, I was probably a bit to quick and didn't properly explain what I meant in that paragraph, but it would have helped if you had have read the whole thing as one, rather than picking out just one sentence.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=7509&stc=1&d=1255336837

[yuon]

Socialism isn't a system or abstract game. There'll be a revolution and then we'll try to work towards communism if things go well. Who can say excactly what things will look like, thats absurd.

The question, I think, was more, was Marx correct? Is the only option after capitalism "proletariat rule"? I took it as a little bit of a thought experiment.

But anyway, there maybe a revolution, or, maybe, there might not be. Maybe the capitalist state will evolve to something different. I would suggest that the study of history can't really provide an answer to what things might be like in the future. It's all speculation.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=7509&stc=1&d=1255336837

[Die Neue Zeit]

* Something I would argue was announced definitively by WWI, contrary to the faddish theories of 'late capitalism' which see capitalism's moribundity manifested following the post-war boom.

It's not faddish if discussions over it last for over thirty years. Check out Q's article above.

The debate on bureaucratic collectivism is also tied with some of the arguments in the Theory forum on the USSR's combination of explicitly socialist planning (albeit of the technocratic and not democratic type), money-capital circulation, and during the Stalin era slave labour (gulags).

Some combination of socialist planning and money-capital circulation would be part of the transitional period (whether as a separate stage or affecting only various areas of the economy).

[Niccolò Rossi]

It's not faddish if discussions over it last for over thirty years.

It hasn't.


The debate on bureaucratic collectivism is also tied with some of the arguments in the Theory forum on the USSR's combination of explicitly socialist planning (albeit of the technocratic and not democratic type), money-capital circulation, and during the Stalin era slave labour (gulags).

There was nothing 'socialist' about the planning in the USSR.

[Revy]

There is only one stage, revolution.

The real revisionism is to suggest that we should live under an authoritarian party bureaucracy (for example, North Korea) and refer to this as "socialism" that comes before "communism" (that never comes in such a scenario). So with a serious frame of mind Khrushchev hollered "20 years to communism!" after crushing the revolt in Hungary.

I agree that such stagism and gradualism is really only the authoritarian wing of social democracy, owing its own self-justification to the early "evolutionary" forms of Marxism that later joined themselves completely to the service of the bourgeois state.

[Hit The North]

What does it mean for "the proletariat ... to take political power"?
http://www.revleft.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=7509&stc=1&d=1255336837

It's a transitory situation for this reason: the separation of political and economic life occurs because the dominating class is not the direct economic producer. Once the ruling class is the direct producer, then the division between economic and political power evaporates. It's by seizing control over the means of production that the proletariat takes political power.

[Hit The North]

The question, I think, was more, was Marx correct? Is the only option after capitalism "proletariat rule"? I took it as a little bit of a thought experiment.

But anyway, there maybe a revolution, or, maybe, there might not be. Maybe the capitalist state will evolve to something different. I would suggest that the study of history can't really provide an answer to what things might be like in the future. It's all speculation.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=7509&stc=1&d=1255336837

We need to ask how we define "capitalism". I'd suggest that fundamentally it is the domination over labour by capital. It doesn't matter whether the social agent of capital, its human representative, is an association of independent property owners (i.e. a bourgeoisie) or an army of state bureaucrats (whether they call themselves communist or fascist), we are still dealing with capitalism (the rule of capital over labour).

The most important feature is the alienation of the direct producers from control over the instruments and objects of their production, which allows whomever (a class or a state) to transform labour into another commodity which it can buy and sell, command and exploit. Until this situation is overcome we cannot say we are dealing with a socialist society.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It's not faddish if discussions over it last for over thirty years. Check out Q's article above.It hasn't.

I refer you to Ernest Mandel's 1975 work Late Capitalism and especially the 1966 work Monopoly Capital: An Essay on the American Economic and Social Order by Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_Capital). These two works triggered the Marxist take on late capitalism.


There was nothing 'socialist' about the planning in the USSR.

If you're referring to planning only in the aggregate, given technological constraints at the time, then I agree. However, consider the guy in your own avatar, who had a very authoritarian view of central planning. [I would consider his authoritarian take on socialism to be a form of genuine socialism, no matter how much I dislike it.]


It's a transitory situation for this reason: the separation of political and economic life occurs because the dominating class is not the direct economic producer. Once the ruling class is the direct producer, then the division between economic and political power evaporates. It's by seizing control over the means of production that the proletariat takes political power.

That's left economism. The dictatorship of the proletariat only guarantees supreme political power for the proletariat, while the class must still appropriate economic power in the transitional process.

[Niccolò Rossi]

I refer you to Ernest Mandel's 1975 work Late Capitalism and especially the 1966 work Monopoly Capital: An Essay on the American Economic and Social Order by Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_Capital). These two works triggered the Marxist take on late capitalism.

Well I don't think there is a Marxist take on 'late capitalism', I think there is an eclectic assortment of these 'theories', some more more popular and well recieved than others at this time or another. Also, I take everything by the likes of Mandel, Baran and Sweezy with a grain of salt.


If you're referring to planning only in the aggregate, given technological constraints at the time, then I agree.=JR

I would say it wasn't an issue necessarily with technological development, but with the lack of any proletarian dictatorship, much less on an international level!

On what level was the planning that existed in the USSR socialist (if not in the aggregate)?

[Tatarin]

I find it hard that there could be any drastically different system between capitalism and socialism. Perhaps some kind of owner-robots system, in where the working class is supressed to give way to working machines (which in turn won't demand anything). But that's regression into barbarism.

I guess we will know when the states of the world declare most people "enemies of the planet"...

[Die Neue Zeit]

Going into that man-vs-machine dystopia (the weird robotic mix of communism and genocidal "racism"), are we? ;)

[Hit The North]

That's left economism. The dictatorship of the proletariat only guarantees supreme political power for the proletariat, while the class must still appropriate economic power in the transitional process.

Until the workers control the means of production and organise it for their own benefit, there is no dictatorship of the proletariat. You appear to be suggesting that the seizure of political power is the precondition for the revolution, whereas I'd suggest that it's the other way around. Otherwise we end up with a strategy which focusses on the appropriation of bourgeois political forms by the representatives of the workers, and we all know where that ends up.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Until the workers control the means of production and organise it for their own benefit, there is no dictatorship of the proletariat.

Part of the demands of the DOTP includes the public monopoly on financial services. But that's quite different from seizing ownership of a publicly traded luxury boat company or a publicly traded home alarm service company.


You appear to be suggesting that the seizure of political power is the precondition for the revolution, whereas I'd suggest that it's the other way around. Otherwise we end up with a strategy which focusses on the appropriation of bourgeois political forms by the representatives of the workers, and we all know where that ends up.

Read my blog. The seizure of political power is indeed the precondition for social revolution, but that can only occur with new political forms imposed. Every class struggle is a "politico-political" struggle.

Your strategy is the same as that of the left syndicalists in the early 20th century, focusing on mere control of the means of production (in their case, making a strategy out of the general strike tactic) and relying on the notion that this automatically leads to appropriate solutions for political power:

Revolutionary Strategy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=205)

[Enragé]

Until the workers control the means of production and organise it for their own benefit, there is no dictatorship of the proletariat. You appear to be suggesting that the seizure of political power is the precondition for the revolution, whereas I'd suggest that it's the other way around. Otherwise we end up with a strategy which focusses on the appropriation of bourgeois political forms by the representatives of the workers, and we all know where that ends up.


I think both extremes, whether your economism or jacob's 'politicism', are too one sided. We have to do both, at the same time. The taking over of the means of production will put us on a collision course with the bougeois state, thus prompting us to smash it or be smashed by it, and an attack on the authority of the bourgeois state (from below, a revolutionary left perspective, the working class, w/e) will inevitably lead us to the bitter necessity of taking over the means of production. That is, if we want it to go from uprising, a temporary uprooting of the state's ability to function, to revolution, the destruction of the state by taking away that on which it rests (i.e the economic power of the bourgeoisie, of which the state is, in the final analysis, the continuation on the political stage.. i.e that of the armed group of men).

Or in other words, the revolution entails spreading anarchy (attack the state) and necessary for this the constitution of a self-acting armed organisation of the people whilst living communism (communalising that which keeps us alive, i.e the means of production, constituting the realm of necessity) for which it is necessary to forge links between communes.

Which of this is to be the 'first' is trivial, impossible to know. it will happen as it will happen or it will not.

All we can say is that when the attack on the state is opened we must push forward the necessity of taking over the means of production, and when the taking over of the means of production is taking place we have to push forward the necessity of smashing the state apparatus.

[Hit The North]

Read my blog. The seizure of political power is indeed the precondition for social revolution, but that can only occur with new political forms imposed. Every class struggle is a "politico-political" struggle.

Your strategy is the same as that of the left syndicalists in the early 20th century, focusing on mere control of the means of production (in their case, making a strategy out of the general strike tactic) and relying on the notion that this automatically leads to appropriate solutions for political power:

Revolutionary Strategy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=205)

I'm not advocating a strategy, merely opposing your narrow political version of the DOTP and pointing out that the proletariat cannot call itself the ruling class (and thereby exercise its dictatorship over society) until it has laid claim to control over the means of production. The abolition of bourgeois property relations cannot begin as an edict from a revolutionary government, but only as an ACTION by the workers themselves. Thereafter, the edict - if it comes at all - is merely the formalising of what has already occured.

Of course, I'm not trying to deny the political struggle, only setting a priority claim for the economic struggle.

NewKindofSoldier is correct when he detects an unhelpful polarization in the presentation of our arguments. The political and the economic (a wholly bourgeois division, as I pointed out above) should be considered in a dialectical relation to each other, but one in which the economic (another bourgeois catagory and one we Marxists should properly call the material conditions) tends to dominate. In this way we avoid formulations like this:


The seizure of political power is indeed the precondition for social revolution

which indicates a revolution engineered from above.

[Tatarin]

Going into that man-vs-machine dystopia (the weird robotic mix of communism and genocidal "racism"), are we? ;)

Well, we have to think about every possibility, don't we? :lol:

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think both extremes, whether your economism or jacob's 'politicism', are too one sided. We have to do both, at the same time.

I wasn't being a "democratist" (to be more accurate here on "politicism") here. Please justify the notion that workers taking immediate control over publicly traded luxury boat companies or publicly traded home alarm service companies is crucial to the DOTP.

The Paris Commune fell because the banks weren't expropriated. Financial services, as you know, are at the commanding heights of any money-capital economy.


Which of this is to be the 'first' is trivial, impossible to know. it will happen as it will happen or it will not.

All we can say is that when the attack on the state is opened we must push forward the necessity of taking over the means of production, and when the taking over of the means of production is taking place we have to push forward the necessity of smashing the state apparatus.

While I agree with your last point, every social revolution of the past was preceded by political revolution (like Russia, France, and England). This historical precedence serves as my response to Bob's Post #24.


I'm not advocating a strategy, merely opposing your narrow political version of the DOTP and pointing out that the proletariat cannot call itself the ruling class (and thereby exercise its dictatorship over society) until it has laid claim to control over the means of production. The abolition of bourgeois property relations cannot begin as an edict from a revolutionary government, but only as an ACTION by the workers themselves. Thereafter, the edict - if it comes at all - is merely the formalising of what has already occured.

The bourgeoisie did not eliminate feudal property relations before taking power, did they?

What the "narrow political version of the DOTP" does is allow the proletariat to re-appropriate (damn Hardt and Negri) the means of production without fear of legal retaliation by the ousted ruling class:

http://www.iran-bulletin.org/Marxism/Macnair%20-%208.htm


This understanding enables us to formulate a core political minimum platform for the participation of communists in a government. The key is to replace the illusory idea of ‘All power to the soviets’ and the empty one of ‘All power to the Communist Party’ with the original Marxist idea of the undiluted democratic republic, or ‘extreme democracy’, as the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

This implies:

l universal military training and service, democratic political and trade union rights within the military, and the right to keep and bear arms;
l election and recallability of all public officials; public officials to be on an average skilled workers’ wage;
l abolition of official secrecy laws and of private rights of copyright and confidentiality;
l self-government in the localities: ie, the removal of powers of central government control and patronage and abolition of judicial review of the decisions of elected bodies;
l abolition of constitutional guarantees of the rights of private property and freedom of trade.

[Enragé]

Please justify the notion that workers taking immediate control over publicly traded luxury boat companies or publicly traded home alarm service companies is crucial to the DOTP.


For if they do not the revolution is empty and hollow, lacking
1. a democratic structure based on workplace (as well as local) assemblies
2. nothing changes in the daily lives of the people working there (i.e they still not control the means of production)

Also, the DOTP is a process, not a state of affairs, i.e it is the process in which the proletariat smashes the power of the bourgeois. This extends both to the political as it does to the economical. Struggles in both terrains are not seperate but go in hand in hand, or when they are seperated the separation is purely artificial (and if carried on in practice leads to a skewed development).

This in fact is what the paris commune shows. Taking over the central bank of a country is as much an offensive on the political as on the economic front. The whole seperation of the political and economic, moreover, is but a consequence of capitalism. We have to bring it back together, through imposing the social on it.


every social revolution of the past was preceded by political revolution

Every social revolution is a political revolution, as well as an economic one. It is not that the one is the precondition for the other, it is that they are all tied up inextricably in the same process - dialectically related perhaps*. For if the proletariat do not take control of their own lives as a whole, i.e in its political as well as economic aspects, the bourgeoisie will retaliate from the power base they have managed to hold on to; whether the state or capital.

To continue the abstract seperation of the political and economical in the realm of praxis (i.e in what you do) is simply dangerous, for in real life they intermingle, cannot be seperated.

This ofcourse is not to say that there should not be priorities after/during a revolution, but these are not for me to decide (though i'd press for an immediate taking over of the central bank, ofcourse, if such an idea did not arise from others.). Moreover, they are impossible for me to grasp right now, pre-revolution (even pre-movement/whatever), except ofcourse what concretely we can learn from past revolutions (e.g take the central bank!).


*last word added so that rosa doesnt start attacking me on dialectics =p

[Niccolò Rossi]

Every social revolution is a political revolution, as well as an economic one. It is not that the one is the precondition for the other, it is that they are all tied up inextricably in the same process

This is what Lenin had to say at the Extraordinary Seventh Congress of the RCP(B) in his Political Report Of The Central Committee:


"One of the fundamental differences between bourgeois revolution and socialist revolution is that for the bourgeois revolution, which arises out of feudalism, the new economic organisations are gradually created in the womb of the old order, gradually changing all the aspects of feudal society.The bourgeois revolution faced only one task—to sweep away, to cast aside, to destroy all the fetters of the preceding social order. By fulfilling this task every bourgeois revolution fulfils all that is required of it; it accelerates the growth of capitalism.

The socialist revolution is in an altogether different position. [...] The difference between a socialist revolution and a bourgeois revolution is that in the latter case there are ready-made forms of capitalist relationships; Soviet power—the proletarian power—does not inherit such ready-made relationships..."
This, of course, has nothing to do with what JR is saying, something with which I disagree.




For if the proletariat do not take control of their own lives as a whole, i.e in its political as well as economic aspects, the bourgeoisie will retaliate from the power base they have managed to hold on to; whether the state or capital.

How do you imagine it will be possible for the working class to take control of the economic aspects of their own lives the day after revolution? Socialism cannot be built in one country, this means the economic basis of the proletarian dictatorship remains fundamentally capitalist. Of course, whilst the working class can modify its operation and make certain inroads upon capitalism, it cannot stand above it or fundamentally change it without the conscious effort of the world working class.


To continue the abstract seperation of the political and economical in the realm of praxis (i.e in what you do) is simply dangerous, for in real life they intermingle, cannot be seperated.

I'm not sure what your point is with this notion of 'intermingling' is. I think it appears more profound than it really is.

[Die Neue Zeit]

This is what Lenin had to say at the Extraordinary Seventh Congress of the RCP(B) in his Political Report Of The Central Committee:


"One of the fundamental differences between bourgeois revolution and socialist revolution is that for the bourgeois revolution, which arises out of feudalism, the new economic organisations are gradually created in the womb of the old order, gradually changing all the aspects of feudal society.The bourgeois revolution faced only one task—to sweep away, to cast aside, to destroy all the fetters of the preceding social order. By fulfilling this task every bourgeois revolution fulfils all that is required of it; it accelerates the growth of capitalism.

The socialist revolution is in an altogether different position. [...] The difference between a socialist revolution and a bourgeois revolution is that in the latter case there are ready-made forms of capitalist relationships; Soviet power—the proletarian power—does not inherit such ready-made relationships..."
This, of course, has nothing to do with what JR is saying, something with which I disagree.

Could you please clarify on the disagreement and the perceived discrepancy between Lenin's speech, inspired mainly by words in the first chapter of The Social Revolution, and my posts in this thread?

[Niccolò Rossi]

Could you please clarify on the disagreement and the perceived discrepancy between Lenin's speech, inspired mainly by words in the first chapter of The Social Revolution, and my posts in this thread?

You said: "every social revolution of the past was preceded by political revolution". This is clearly incorrect and Lenin agrees. The political revolution is a moment in the social revolution (as NKOS notes, every social revolution is a political revolution), it is a culminating point, the product of a prior economic evolution. The bourgeoisie did not seize political power and then go about imposing capitalist relations of production on a feudal world, the process was the opposite and has been in all prior social revolutions. The proletarian revolution is unique in this respect and not as you say, no different.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I would say that what you've described is in fact social evolution and not social revolution. Before the bourgeoisie came to power, the proliferation of capitalist relations of production throughout feudal society was a process of social evolution and not social revolution:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1902/socrev/pt1-1.htm


Here also the revolutions are the result of slow, gradual development (evolution). Here also it is the social organs that develop slowly. That which may be changed suddenly, at a leap, revolutionarily, is their functions. The railroad has been slowly developed. On the other hand, the railroad can suddenly be transformed from its function as the instrument to the enrichment of a number of capitalists, into a socialist enterprise having as its function the serving of the common good.

In today's world, the continuous development of the means for centralized planning, the electronification of financial systems (crucial for non-circulation of labour credits, for example), and dare I say even the development of open-source economics ("from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs") would constitute elements of social evolution and not social revolution.

[Niccolò Rossi]

I would say that what you've described is in fact social evolution and not social revolution.

Well, you can call it what you like (it's not like saying anything could change that), but it's important for the sake of clarity to specify what we mean by these terms. Trotsky, for example, defined the social revolution as a change in the class character of the state, i.e. the act through which the class bearing with it new relations of production establishes its political domination over society. In contrast to this he proposed the political revolution as the process of a different section of the ruling class capturing the state apparatus, but leaving its class nature unchanged.

By this use of the term it would be absurd to say the political revolution preceeds the social revolution.

Of course, it is apparent this is not what has been meant. If the term 'social revolution' refers to the economic transformation which accompanies the social revolution proper (which it seemed to me apparent you were doing, maybe I was wrong?), well you are still wrong in saying that historically the act of political revolution has preceeded the social revolution.


In today's world, the continuous development of the means for centralized planning, the electronification of financial systems (crucial for non-circulation of labour credits, for example), and dare I say even the development of open-source economics ("from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs") would constitute elements of social evolution and not social revolution.

Not at all. If you term the development of relations of production corresponding to the revolutionary class 'social evolution' how can you call modern technological developments a 'social evolution' also? You can't.

The proletariat, unlike hitherto existing revolutionary classes can not begin to impose the relations of production corresponding to it within the womb of the old society.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well, you can call it what you like (it's not like saying anything could change that), but it's important for the sake of clarity to specify what we mean by these terms. Trotsky, for example, defined the social revolution as a change in the class character of the state, i.e. the act through which the class bearing with it new relations of production establishes its political domination over society. In contrast to this he proposed the political revolution as the process of a different section of the ruling class capturing the state apparatus, but leaving its class nature unchanged.

By this use of the term it would be absurd to say the political revolution preceeds the social revolution.

Of course, it is apparent this is not what has been meant.

How in blazes did Trotsky arrive at that narrow, absurd reasoning? By his definition, one could call coup d'etats (the most reactionary sections of the ruling class taking power) "political revolutions." :rolleyes:


Not at all. If you term the development of relations of production corresponding to the revolutionary class 'social evolution' how can you call modern technological developments a 'social evolution' also? You can't.

The proletariat, unlike hitherto existing revolutionary classes can not begin to impose the relations of production corresponding to it within the womb of the old society.

I think the answer is two-fold: limited "impositions" are in place (per my examples) insofar as they seemingly enhance bourgeois positions, and they are also imposed by the bourgeoisie like rope is sold by them to the hangman (productivity paradox in technological development).

[Enragé]

How do you imagine it will be possible for the working class to take control of the economic aspects of their own lives the day after revolution? Socialism cannot be built in one country, this means the economic basis of the proletarian dictatorship remains fundamentally capitalist. Of course, whilst the working class can modify its operation and make certain inroads upon capitalism, it cannot stand above it or fundamentally change it without the conscious effort of the world working class.


The taking control of the economic aspects of their lives is part of that revolution. Revolution is not a one-day occurrence, nor does it come about like lightening in a clear sky. Every revolution has a movement as its basis, and it is the development and struggle of this movement which already makes the first inroads to socialising production and smashing the state [i.e confrontation]. Revolution is the moment (or better yet, moments) at which the movement pushes beyond the limits of bourgeois society (i.e suspends the states power on the streets and begins taking over the means of production).

The lenin quote u gave actually supports this, for we start out in a situation where all there is is capitalism. Therefore, the revolution must be total, a political one alone simply does not suffice.

I don't see how workers in one area/region/country cannot take over the means of production, thus transforming the basis of society (and making the DOTP's basis decidedly anti-capitalist). The reason why socialism in one country/area/region fails is not that the former cannot be done, but that in the long run it cannot be upheld and be pushed to fruition unless people in other areas/regions/countries revolt as well.




I'm not sure what your point is with this notion of 'intermingling' is. I think it appears more profound than it really is.

Well sorry i'll try to use less profound-sounding words because ofcourse, its not profound at all. We can see it every single day. Our daily experience is comprised of economic, political, and social elements, but they are not seperated from eachother. So, revolution is a revolution of all three, or it is not. I'm just saying that we should do everything we can to approach this problem from a [I]total perspective and not cut up our reality in abstract little pieces. The social revolution cannot take place in just the political realm, or the economic, it takes place in both.

For, how could we seperate the fight against the bosses from the fight against the state who protects it? Or the fight for direct democracy from below from the fight for democracy in the workplace? Such a seperation is artificial, abstract and seperated from what we are actually doing at best, at worst it gives rise to disastrous decisions (i.e leaving the bourgeoisie some economic power, some political power, because having political power or economical power in and of itself would be enough to 'secure socialism' -e.g-> 'lets not take the central bank' or simply forgetting about it).

[Niccolò Rossi]

I don't see how workers in one area/region/country cannot take over the means of production, thus transforming the basis of society (and making the DOTP's basis decidedly anti-capitalist).

Anti-capitalist, certainly. Non-capitalist, certainly not.


The reason why socialism in one country/area/region fails is not that the former cannot be done, but that in the long run it cannot be upheld and be pushed to fruition unless people in other areas/regions/countries revolt as well.

This is certainly news to me. I'm not sure whether this is even the IS position, but I think this at least a reflection of their (erroneous) analysis of state capitalism.


Well sorry i'll try to use less profound-sounding words because ofcourse, its not profound at all.

Don't be sorry, you did it above in this post also. The problem is not necessarily yours, I've noticed it with Cliffites generally.


The social revolution cannot take place in just the political realm, or the economic, it takes place in both. For, how could we seperate the fight against the bosses from the fight against the state who protects it? Or the fight for direct democracy from below from the fight for democracy in the workplace?

Again certainly. But saying this, will the proletarian revolution result in an transformation in the economic basis fo society overnight? Was Russia post-capitalist at the dawn of 1922? 1920? 1918? October 26, 1917!? This is the crux of the issue I have, I think you are making it into a bigger matter thanit is necessarily.

[robbo203]

It seems to me that this thread is based on an assumption that is questionable. That Marx talked of a transition between capitalism and communism (aka Socialism) is not in doubt. However this transition was NOT a different kind of society or social system - it was "political transition"

There can be no such thing as a transitional society between communism and capitalism. Communism, in the words of the Manifesto, entails the most "radical rupture " with existing property relations. You either have common ownership of the means of production or you do not and if you do not, that means you still have sectional or class ownership of these means. In other words capitalism. Unless of course you are talking about some other form of class society qualitatively different from capitalism and lacking its essential attributes such as generalised wage labour , universal buying and selling, capital accumulation and so on. Frankly I see no possibility of that unless we are talking about a return to some pre-capitalist social formation - an updated version of ancient slavery, perhaps - following some global catastrophe perhaps

However this would certainly not be a "transition" to communism but a devastating move away from communism.

I argue that the only useful way in which one can talk about a "transition" is in the context of what is going on WITHIN capitalism itself - the development of prefigurative phenomena within the womb of capitalist society. There is no transition between capitalism and communism as such. Communism or socialism begins immediately after capitalism is consciously and politically brought to an end