Socialism's Transition to Communism

[The Count]

I've recently been wondering about the use of Socialism as a transitional phase towards Communism. It seems like when Marx explained his idea of a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", he believed that the dismantling of Capitalism would be perpetrated by this newly implemented State. However, all that Socialist nations have been able to do in the progression towards Communism has been the elimination of private enterprise, whereas Capitalism itself still persists (except carried out by the State).

I'm personally wary of putting economic power into the hands of such a State (even one that claims to be 'for the people'), due to the fact that government economic management appears to be of much lesser quality when compared to that of private business. For example, in the Soviet Union you had to be on a waiting list for years when purchasing an automobile, whereas in any developed Capitalist nation, you could just walk into a dealership and buy one. I'm aware that a big challenge of Socialism is making sure that economic scarcity is eliminated, and using my example, that everyone who needs an automobile can have one.

My thoughts may appear a bit convoluted, but essentially I'm asking if Socialism is a necessary step in the path towards Communism. My primary concern with Socialism is that it endows the government with a very large amount of power, and that many Socialist nations become "degenerated workers' States". I'd appreciate any thoughts on how this transitional phase could work.

[Patchd]

I've recently been wondering about the use of Socialism as a transitional phase towards Communism. It seems like when Marx explained his idea of a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", he believed that the dismantling of Capitalism would be perpetrated by this newly implemented State. However, all that Socialist nations have been able to do in the progression towards Communism has been the elimination of private enterprise, whereas Capitalism itself still persists (except carried out by the State).

Your quite right, in many cases private enterprise was not even eliminated in it's entirety, and in what some Marxists, namely Trotskyists, would call degenerated, deformed, or state capitalist (or even bureaucratic socialist) we see a transition to a complete overhaul of any forms that could be considered 'socialist' economic organisation.


I'm personally wary of putting economic power into the hands of such a State (even one that claims to be 'for the people'), due to the fact that government economic management appears to be of much lesser quality when compared to that of private business.This is however not the case, I am definitely wary of putting economic power, or any sort of power for that matter, in the hands of the state. Like you've mentioned, a lot of government industries were inefficient, or of poor quality. What has to be mentioned though is that in many places, state provision provided overall better care for the citizens than private enterprise has, take the dismantling of the Soviet state for example and the increasing rates of poverty, as well as an increase in drug abuse (inc. alcoholism), domestic violence, suicide rates and abortion rates that come with it.

This is not to say however that I support state control of anything. I oppose the state in all it's forms, it is inherently oppressive, as it's function is to maintain a hierarchical and oppressive socio-economic form of control. The state, to me, is a centralised and hierarchical body in charge of maintaining (on behalf of the ruling class) a socio-economic system, whether it be by an authoritarian, or so-called 'libertarian' political body. But then, workers do not require the state to maintain their lives and workplaces. Workers' control over their own workplaces has been tried and achieved in the past before, such as in Spain during the Spanish revolution '36-'39 and Russia in it's revolutionary climate, it can happen again, even more efficiently now as well with the technology we have available to us. Workers can co-ordinate production, and distribution collectively in a federation.


My thoughts may appear a bit convoluted, but essentially I'm asking if Socialism is a necessary step in the path towards Communism. My primary concern with Socialism is that it endows the government with a very large amount of power, and that many Socialist nations become "degenerated workers' States". I'd appreciate any thoughts on how this transitional phase could work.If you're interested in Libertarian Communism, then you may like to have a look at some Marxists who don't see the state, or Socialism, as being necessary, and in fact opposing to working class interests. There are also Anarchists, who hold similar positions on many things with libertarian Marxists, and a lot of Anarchist theory has been influenced by Marxists. There are also syndicalists who believe society does not require the state in order to 'transition' or function too, they believe society can be run through a network, or confederation of workers unions.

[ZeroNowhere]

I wrote about this here: -link- (http://theinnermountingflame.blogspot.com/2009/09/dictatorship-of-proleteriat.html)
Also worth reading is perhaps this (http://www.deleonism.org/text/91092101.htm). I don't object to much there except the 'scientific meaning' bit... What? But yeah, it's good.