What will a Socialist Society look like?

[Hexen]

I think this has been discussed many times before but does anyone here have a vision how a socialist/communist/anarchist society would look like, how it would function, etc oppose to our current capitalist society?

[RadioRaheem84]

As a newbie, I may be totally wrong in this, but I pictured it to look like Sweden if the workers took over all the industries. Minus, the protection of property rights, there seems to be a more democratic state that respects the workers, no?

[Spawn of Stalin]

Sweden is a liberal social democracy, there is lots of capitalism, lots of worker exploitation, and lots of commercialism, so hopefully it will look nothing like Sweden. Personally, I don't know what it will look like, every socialist state from the Soviet Union to Cuba to Albania to Korea has been completely different, the only thing that is really consistent among all socialist states is government and economy. I figure if a new socialist state popped up tomorrow then it would be unique in character.

[syndicat]

An authentic socialism must be built by the working class in such a way that they are empwered in social production and in control over the society, dismantling the class power of the managerial and capitaliist classes. This would mean, at a minimum, direct workers management of industries. This would require things like general assemblies in workplaces to make decisions, election of delegates to coordinating committees, election of delegates from various workplaces to workers congresses to plan out things for an industry, and for a region.

As a means to the people directly having control over planning about what is produced and the rules for the society, there might be neighorhood or town assemblies, that is, of all the residents. These also might elect a coordinating committee, delegates to regional congresses.

But there would need to be the breaking up, dismantling of the old hierarchical state machine, and its replacement by a working class controlled militia, and congresses of delegates controlled by assemblies at the base.

Part of the point to the change would be to ensure that people's needs are met, through the development from below of planning for systems of social provision for things like health care, child care, ensuring that meaningful self-managed work is available, a democratic media system, housing, public transit etc.

[robbo203]

Depends what you mean by socialism. Up until the early 20th centruy it commonly meant more or less the same ting as as communism - a moneyless wageless stateless commonwealth based on common ownership of the productive forces. Morris Kropotkin, Marx and Engels all used socialism in this sense. Even Stalin described a socialist society as a society without buying or selling!

For a reasonable description of what such a society would be look like here is a peice from an old SPGB pamphlet Questions of the Day

(http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/QOD/quod17.html)
What Socialism means

SOCIALISM is the only system within which the problems which now face workers can be solved; but what will it be like? Socialism is a system in which the means for producing and distributing wealth will be owned by society as a whole. Under capitalism the land, factories, offices, mines, railways and other instruments of production and distribution are monopolised by a section of society only, who thus form a privileged class. Socialism will end this, for, with the means of life ownedin common by the entire community, it will be a classless society in which the exploitation and oppression of man by man will have been abolished. All human beings will be social equals, freely able to co-operate in running social affairs.

Drawing up a detailed blueprint for Socialism is premature, since the exact forms will depend upon the technical conditions and preferences of those who set up and live in Socialism; but we can broadly define the essential features of Socialism.

Socialism can only be democratic. At one time Socialism was known also as 'social democracy', a phrase which shows well that democratic control would extend to all aspects of social affairs, including the production and distribution of wealth. There is an old socialist slogan which speaks of 'government over people' giving way 'to the administration of things'; meaning that the public power of coercion, and the government which operates it will have no place in Socialism. The State, which is an organisation composed of soldiers, policemen, judges and gaolers charged with enforcing the laws, is only needed in class society for in such societies there is no community of interest, only class conflict. The purpose of govenmeat is to maintain law and order in the interests of the dominant class. It is in fact an instrument of class oppression. In Socialism there will be no classes and no built-in class conflicts: everybody will have the same basic social interest. There will be genuine social harmony and community of interest. In these circumstances there is no need for any coercive machine to govern or rule over people. The phrase 'socialist government' is a contradiction in terms. Where there is Socialism there is no government and where there is government there is no Socialism.

Those who wrongly assume that government and administration are one and the same will have some difficulty in imagining a society without government. A society without administration would indeed be impossible since 'society' implies that human beings organise themselves to provide for their needs. But a society without government is both possible and desirable. Socialism will in fact mean the extension of democratic administration to all aspects of social life on the basis of the common ownership of the means of production and distribution. There will be administrative centres which will be clearing-houses for settling social affairs by majority decision.

But will not the administrators become the new ruling class? Democratic organisation does indeed involve the delegation of functions to groups and individuals. Such people will be charged by the community with organising necessary social functions. They will be chosen by the community and will be answerable to it. Those who perform the administrative functions in Socialism would be in no position to dominate. They will not be regarded as superior persons, as tends to be the case today, but as social equals doing an essential job. Nor will they have at their command armies and policemen to enforce their will. There will be no opportunity for bribery and corruption since everybody, including those in administrative jobs, will have free access to the stock of wealth set aside for individual consumption. The material conditions for the rise of a new ruling class would not exist.

The purpose of socialist production will be simply and solely to satisfy human needs. Under present arrangements production is for the market with a view to profit. This will be replaced by production solely and directly for use. The production and distribution of sufficient wealth to meet the needs of the socialist community as individuals and as a community will be an administrative and organisational problem. It will be no small problem but the tools for solving it have already been created by capitalism.

Capitalism has developed technology and social productivity to the point where plenty for all can be produced. A society of abundance has long been technically pcssible and it is this that is the material basis for Socialism. Capitalism, because it is a class society with production geared to profit-making rather than meeting human needs, cannot make full use of the world-wide productive system it has built up over the past two hundred or so years. Socialism, making full use of the developed methods of production, will alter the purpose of production. Men and women will be producing wealth solely to meet their needs, and not for the profit of a privileged few.

Using techniques for predicting social wants (at present prostituted to the service of capital), a socialist society can work out how much and what sort of products and services will be needed over a given period. Men and women will be free to discuss what they would like to be produced. So with social research and after democratic discussion an estimate of what is needed can be made. The next problem is to arrange for these amounts to be produced. Capitalism, with its modern computing machines and input-output analysis, has developed the techniques which a socialist society can use.

When the wealth has been produced, apart from that needed to renew and expand the means of production, all will freely take what they feel they need to live and enjoy life. This is what we mean by 'free access'. There will be no buying and selling, and hence no need for money. What communities and individuals want does not vary greatly except over long periods, and it will be a simple administrative task to see that the stores are well-stocked with what people need. If any shortages develop they will not last long. Planned reserves will be held as a safeguard agzins; unforeseen natural disasters.

'Fron each according to his ability, to each according to his need' is another long-standing socialist principle. It means what it says: that men and women will freely take part in social production to the best of their abilities, and freely take from the fruits of their common labour whatever they need.

Confronted for the first time with this proposal for free distribution according to need, many people are sceptical. What about the lazy man? Or the greedy man? Who will do the dirty work? What will be the incentive to work? These are objections socialists hear time and time again. These are perhaps understandable reactions to what seems, to those who have never thought about it, a startling proposition. As a matter of fact, behind these objections is a carefully cultivated popular prejudice as to what human nature is. We dealt with this earlier in the section on human nature. Suffice it to say here that biological and social science and anthropological research conclusively show that so-called human nature is not a barrier to the establishment of Socialism.

Work, or the expenditure of energy, is both a biological and a social must for human beings. They must work to use up the energy generated by eating food. They must work also to provide the food, clothing and shelter they need to live. So in any society, be it feudal, capitalist or socialist, men and women must work. The point at issue is how that work should be organised. A very strong argument against capitalism is that it reduces so central a human activity as work to the drudgery it is for most people, instead of allowing it to provide the pleasure it could, and would in a socialist society.

To suggest that work could be pleasant often raises a laugh; but this only shows how much capitalism has degraded human life. Most, but certainly not all work under capitalism is done in the service of an employer so that people almost without thinking identify work with employment. Working for an employer is always degrading, often boring and unpleasant and sometimes unhealthy and dangerous. But even under capitalism not all work, as we have defined it, is done in the course of employment. Men and women are working when they clean their cars, dig their gardens, or pursue their hobbies and enjoy themselves at the same time. So close is the misleading association of work with employment that many would not even regard such activities as work. They think that anything that is pleasant cannot by definition be work!

There is no reason at all why the work of producing and distributing useful things cannot be as enjoyable as are leisure-time activities today. The physical conditions under which work is done can be vastly improved. So can the relationships between people at work. Human beings, as free and equal members of a socialist community, will no longer have to sell their mental and physical energies to an employer for a wage or salary. The degrading wages system will be abolished so that there will be no such thing as employment. Instead work will be done by free men and women co-operating and controlling their conditions of work, getting enjoyment from creating things and doing socially useful tasks.

In a socialist society there will be no social stigma attaching to any kind of work. Nor will there be pressures, as exist at present (because they are cheap and therefore profitable to the capitalists) to continue industrial processes which are harmful or dangerous to those engaged in them. In any event, with human needs and enjoyment as the guiding principle, there will be no need for anybody to be tied to the same job continuously. The opportunities for men and women to develop and exercise their talents and to enjoy doing so will be immense.

Finally, Socialism must be world-wide because the productive system which capitalism has built up and which a socialist society will take over is already international. There will be no frontiers and people will be free to travel over the whole earth. Socialism will mean an end to all national oppression - and, indeed, in its current political sense to all 'nations' — and to discriminations on the grounds of race and sex. All the people of the world, wherever they live, whatever their skin colour, whatever language they speak, really will be members of one vast human family. Socialism will at last realise the ags-old dream of the Brotherhood of Man.

[RadioRaheem84]

Sweden is a liberal social democracy, there is lots of capitalism, lots of worker exploitation, and lots of commercialism, so hopefully it will look nothing like Sweden.Granted. I was speaking mainly of its economic model if the workers were to take over the factories. Isn't the government of Sweden though for the most democratic? Free education, health care, social pensions, etc.? If the workers were to take over the industries and repeal the property rights law wouldn't they already have a state that is favorable to them? I thought for the most part democratic socialists were all about setting up the state to favor the worker in preperation for when they took over the factories.

[bailey_187]

Soviet Union, GDR, PRC, DPRK, Cuba, Albania all offer us us examples, each with some shortcomings that will need to be addressed and changed

[Pogue]

I don't think we can really meaningfully talk about this, just think about democracy in all spheres of life. Not even Marx spoke about what 'communism would look like', but look to past revolutions to see what they would look like. Obviously, what 'socialism' looks like depends on your definition of what 'socialism' is.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

This is a wonderfully broad topic, i'm not sure a single answer will suffice. I also don't think that a diatribe outlining my personal utopian dreams will really do much to aid the Socialist cause; reality is about more than fantasy storytelling. For such reason, in answering this question I prefer to follow the libertarian Socialist line in saying that, we do not plan now the exact workings of any future Socialist society, but we lay the democratic foundations and conditions of economic equality, educate the currently ignorant masses, and allow the people of the future to make their own decisions.

[syndicat]

but part of that education has to be about how it is possible to organize economy, polity and society in ways that avoid the injustices and ecological destruction of capitalism. if the people's movement is to decide how it wants to restruct society, it has to discuss it. You can't have a democratic mass movement decision on direction without it being discussed.

[the last donut of the night]

Soviet Union, GDR, PRC, DPRK, Cuba, Albania all offer us us examples, each with some shortcomings that will need to be addressed and changed

state-capitalism isn't a shortcoming...it's an all out disaster for working class people

[RadioRaheem84]

Soviet Union, GDR, PRC, DPRK, Cuba, Albania all offer us us examples, each with some shortcomings that will need to be addressed and changed

I would assume a lot of shortcomings?

[Pogue]

I would assume a lot of shortcomings?

Yeh, but don't worry, there are great excuses for all of them :lol::rolleyes:

I'd revise his statement though. You could look at those societies to realise what went wrong. Look at the early USSR, i.e. definately pre-Stalin and most importantly early Lenin for the best lessons.

[bailey_187]

I would assume a lot of shortcomings?

I aint drawn up a balance sheet yet but will let you know if i do

[ckaihatsu]

An authentic socialism must be built by the working class in such a way that they are empwered in social production and in control over the society, dismantling the class power of the managerial and capitaliist classes. This would mean, at a minimum, direct workers management of industries. This would require things like general assemblies in workplaces to make decisions, election of delegates to coordinating committees, election of delegates from various workplaces to workers congresses to plan out things for an industry, and for a region.

As a means to the people directly having control over planning about what is produced and the rules for the society, there might be neighorhood or town assemblies, that is, of all the residents. These also might elect a coordinating committee, delegates to regional congresses.


I'd like to note that since the time when these ideas of abolishing capitalism were first formed our technological world has changed tremendously, and, as a result, the qualitative *potentials* of a socialist world have been upgraded as well.

Capitalism continues to sow (or is that 'genetically engineer') the seeds of its own destruction -- consider some of the TV polls you may have seen, where the news anchor, after covering a news item, puts a call out for a quick vote from the viewing audience, via their text-messaging cell phones.

While this technique may not be the *best* for *all* issues of public concern, it at least illustrates the *potential* means by which we could have *direct* collective control over policy, without the need for intermediaries -- (politicians, bureaucrats, administrators, delegates, committees, congresses) -- whatsoever.





This is a wonderfully broad topic, i'm not sure a single answer will suffice. I also don't think that a diatribe outlining my personal utopian dreams will really do much to aid the Socialist cause; reality is about more than fantasy storytelling. For such reason, in answering this question I prefer to follow the libertarian Socialist line in saying that, we do not plan now the exact workings of any future Socialist society, but we lay the democratic foundations and conditions of economic equality, educate the currently ignorant masses, and allow the people of the future to make their own decisions.


I think you're implicitly doing a *disservice* to the legitimacy of revolutionary socialism, and to all revolutionaries thereof, by slipping in the terms 'diatribe', 'personal', 'utopian', 'dream', and 'fantasy'.

In doing so you're displacing the *collectivism* of the end-goal idea *itself*, as if to imply that a bunch of people -- possibly the entire world's population altogether -- couldn't *possibly* be thinking and politically working towards the exact same ends.

The power of thought shouldn't be underestimated because it is precisely our *collective* conceptions and plans for tomorrow that enable us to *create* tomorrow, by our own intentions, instead of passively allowing it to "happen" *to* us. If we can carve out a feasible, viable model of a future socialist society, to a high degree of precision -- with the understanding that it would have to be tentative, for now -- then we've already gone a long way in *mapping out* the potential reality of democratic foundations and conditions of economic equality.

Along these lines, I'd like to offer an outline for general consideration, available at this post:


communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1602163&postcount=101

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Nono I think you misunderstand me.

Let me be clear that I think most revolutionary socialists, in fact probably all, have the same general goals - revolution, overthrow and replacement of bourgeois institutions, workers' control of industry, and an economy based on planning, collective ownership and logic, rather than the mass haze of the market.

What I say is that people are individuals, and as such when it comes to things like art and culture, education etc., people around the world will have their own ideas relating to these topics.

It is not for you or I to prophecise, to such extents, what should or should not happen in a future socialist society. We are not omniscient nor omnipotent, hence my comments about diatribes and utopian dreams. We are the controllers of our destinys and that of our comrades around the world, as opposed to the organisers of every nuance of tomorrow's world. We can prepare the framework for a better society, a Socialist one based around general Marxist principles which I outlined above, but it is not for us to decide every single policy for the people of tomorrow.

[syndicat]

but i think that sort of stance won't work. that's because you have to account for the abysmal failure of state socialism in the 20th century.

Lenin's concept of "workers control" was merely checking on management, not having the actual collective power to run production. There are in fact fundamental disagreements related to what has to change for the working class to liberate itself.

Part of the process of the development of mass revolutionary consciousness is debating and trying to understand what we need to change and how we want to restructure society. That population who make a revolution won't have a tradition of this if these things aren't already being discussed all along.

[ckaihatsu]

Nono I think you misunderstand me.


Okay.





Let me be clear that I think most revolutionary socialists, in fact probably all, have the same general goals - revolution, overthrow and replacement of bourgeois institutions, workers' control of industry, and an economy based on planning, collective ownership and logic, rather than the mass haze of the market.


Okay, this is certainly the *most important* part, and is common to all revolutionaries.





What I say is that people are individuals, and as such when it comes to things like art and culture, education etc., people around the world will have their own ideas relating to these topics.


Right -- we can cleanly separate the more *personal* (leisurely) interests and endeavors from the more collective, *structural* aspects (industrial production) in the creation of a post-capitalist society.





It is not for you or I to prophecise, to such extents, what should or should not happen in a future socialist society. We are not omniscient nor omnipotent, hence my comments about diatribes and utopian dreams. We are the controllers of our destinys and that of our comrades around the world, as opposed to the organisers of every nuance of tomorrow's world. We can prepare the framework for a better society, a Socialist one based around general Marxist principles which I outlined above, but it is not for us to decide every single policy for the people of tomorrow.


Agreed.

[Weezer]

Soviet Union, GDR, PRC, DPRK, Cuba, Albania all offer us us examples, each with some shortcomings that will need to be addressed and changed

You mention all those countries, and yet you forget the Paris Commune?

And you call yourself a communist, pathetic.

EDIT: I'm sorry, you're a "Marxist-Leninist", it makes sense now.

[btpound]

You mention all those countries, and yet you forget the Paris Commune?

And you call yourself a communist, pathetic.

EDIT: I'm sorry, you're a "Marxist-Leninist", it makes sense now.

The Paris commune was one city and it was ten weeks. They had very little time and not a very good strategy. Revolution in that case was sort of spontaneous, and the first thing they tried to do is get rid of power once they had it. They had no plan for a planned economy, nor even a plan for the revolutionary seizure of power. Not a socialist revolution in the strictest sense, but it does provide a good example, in that it was the first case of workers taking power and using the state to furnish their own class interests, but hardly an example we can seriously examine.

As far as what a socialist society would look like I have been doing extensive research on that very topic. I have been studying the development of the government in the USSR and in China, two very important examples. The USSR was very similar to most western government in a lot of ways. They had two house congresses, an executive and judicial branch, even a supreme court. The main differences, however, are very distinct. They had a planned economy, and a central body to regulate this economy, the "All-Union Commissariat". All powers not reserved for the All-Union were in the hands of the nine autonomous republics which composed the USSR, although this independent control was limited.

As far as how this society would look, it would look much like the world now. The differences would be subtle, yet profound. Imagine all the grocery stores in your town being the same company. Only instead of it being a company, it is a democratically regulated entity. It would provide the best food for "sale" for the lowest price, the highest wage affordable to it's workers, and everyone there would want to be there; because under socialism the alienation we feel for production under capitalism disappears. In addition, the workers at the store would make decision of the day to day operations democratically. No bosses. And if they do have a manager, he preforms production as well, and maybe takes a pay cut. Of course there would be certain guideline that would be democratically decided by bodies above them that all grocery stores would have to conform to. Socialism overall means two things: (i). democratic control over the wealth you produce, and (ii). the whole of productive forces in society going toward the betterment of the producers in that society.

[bailey_187]

You mention all those countries, and yet you forget the Paris Commune?

And you call yourself a communist, pathetic.

EDIT: I'm sorry, you're a "Marxist-Leninist", it makes sense now.


The Paris Commune was only a short lived thing. The attempts at Socialism I mentioned lasted long enough to see what a developed Socialism will look like.


WTF is "post capitalism"? You sound like a trendy-lefty.

[robbo203]

As far as how this society would look, it would look much like the world now. The differences would be subtle, yet profound. Imagine all the grocery stores in your town being the same company. Only instead of it being a company, it is a democratically regulated entity. It would provide the best food for "sale" for the lowest price, the highest wage affordable to it's workers, and everyone there would want to be there; because under socialism the alienation we feel for production under capitalism disappears..


No, this is quite wrong. What you are describing here is simply capitalism. Capitalism, in the very opening sentence of Das Capital is described as a system of society based on the immesne accmulation of commodities - Commodities are items that are bought and sold on a market and constitute the "cell form" of capitalism. The food that you say is for sale at the lowest price is a commodity and therefore what you are describing is a commodity producing society par excellence - capitalism. In socialism there will be absolutely no commodity production. Food and everything else would be produced solely for human use and for no other purpose

Similarly, in socialism there will be no wages. Generalised wage labour is the hallmark of capitalism. Marx pointed out that wage labour presupposes capital and hence capitalism (see his pamphlet Wage Labour and Capital which is a very good pithy summary of his position). That is why he called for "abolition of the wages system". This is what separates revolutionary socialists, communists and anarchists from mere left wing (essentially pro-capitalist) reformism


Finally if I might say so, your idealised description of what is, in my view, essentially a capitalist economy would in practice prove quite unworkable because it would uncompetitive against other capitalisms more rigorously driven by the need to cut and hold down costs including the cost of labour power - the wages workers receive. I would still feel just as alienated in your kind of "socialism" as I do under capitalism today. This is because there really is no substantive difference between them

[BobKKKindle$]

it was the first case of workers taking power and using the state to furnish their own class interests, but hardly an example we can seriously examine.The Paris Commune is of vital importance and is definitely something we should seriously examine, because it demonstrated for the first time the institutional features that comprise socialist democracy, including delegates being subject to instant recall, and those same delegates being payed no more than the wage of the average worker, as well as the illusory division between economic and political power being eliminated. These features were put in place by the Communards and have also reappeared during the course of subsequent struggles when workers have sought to create organs of democratic power (most notably the Russian Revolution, in the form of Soviets, although further examples would be the Biennio Rosso in Italy during the period 1919-1920 as well as the Iranian Revolution of 1979 despite neither of these struggles leading to the conquest of power in the same way as the working class in Russia did - it's also noteworthy that the model of the Paris Commune was raised by the workers of Shanghai during the Cultural Revolution before they came under attack) because it is only through these features that the working class can hope to exercise its collective dictatorship and prevent the concentration of power in the hands of a minority. The fact that governments like the PRC and (from the 1920s onwards) the USSR did not display these features is, amongst other things, evidence that these governments had nothing to do with socialism.

Marx evidently thought the Paris Commune was important as well, otherwise he wouldn't have written an entire book on it, or identified it as the model for the dictatorship of the proletariat.


As far as how this society would look, it would look much like the world nowI disagree, socialism is not just about transformations in the distribution of resources (although transformations of that kind would probably be sufficient to change the world to a significant degree - I don't think a world without hunger would look the same as the world we have at the moment, if socialism didn't change the way the world looked by abolishing material hardship then it wouldn't be worth having) but, as a result of economic transformations, and the process of working people making themselves the subjects of their own history, will also give rise to transformations in culture and the way people interact with each other as individuals - in essence, every sphere of human experience. The Russian Revolution offers us only a glimpse of what living under socialism might be like because it resulted in an incredible albeit brief period of artistic and social experimentation, when people were able to question the way they and the rest of society had lived in the past and develop new ways of living, based on solidarity and authenticity. A comrade of mine once remarked that Russian art in the early 1920s is incredible not only because of its aesthetic quality but also because simply by looking at it (or listening to it as the case may be) you know that it was only possible because there was a revolution, and by the same token the process of bureaucratic degeneration manifested itself not only in political institutions becoming increasingly authoritarian and undemocratic, but also the restoration of old forms of art, and, from the 1930s onwards, the restoration of the family, and bourgeois morality, in place of collective forms of living.

I don't think it's utopian to say that we can't imagine what people will be like under socialism. The transition from feudalism to capitalism brought about its own significant changes but the changes that occur as a result as a result of the abolition of capitalism are likely to be even greater, due to class society itself being abolished, and not one form of class society being replaced by another.

[ZeroNowhere]

WTF is "post capitalism"? You sound like a trendy-lefty. Presumably 'post-capitalist society' is a society that is... After capitalism.

[bailey_187]

Presumably 'post-capitalist society' is a society that is... After capitalism.

Yeah but its put as if its an ideology like "im a post-capitalist", whereas yours says DeLeonite because you are (i assume) a DeLeonite.

[ZeroNowhere]

Yes, sorry, I thought you were referring to something else.

[btpound]

Perhaps my example was oversimplified. I was just trying to give a contextual example of what it would be like. Indeed, poverty would be a thing of the past, because we would produce to need rather than profit, unemployment too. Albeit simple, I think I am still right. When I said "store" and "sell" I meant those really for lack of a better word. You receive labor notes for your work, yes. The food in that store is not "owned" by that store, but owned by the whole of society. It is part of what Marx called the public fund. But there would be, (i don't real know what to call them), grocer repositories? I mean, I don't think a socialist society would be so alien to us. Marx said that we inherit our material circumstances developed under capitalism, so it must necessary be similar in many ways. If in your town, where there are grocery stores, there probably still will be. They will just be nationalized, and as I said, subject to certain standards. Same with hospitals, schools, banks, restaurants, gas stations, drug stores, department stores, etc. Of course the nature of some of these stores are specifically adapated to capitalist standards, and might have to be scraped in lue of a similar more socialist replacement. And the unused buildings and plots in your town would be developed to public use. And as I said, these stores would give the highest quality of goods/services possible, the lowest price possible, and the workers there recieve the highest wage possible. On Robo203's comment about alienation, no one is forcing you to work at a grocery store. You can work anywhere you want! Not in the way capitalists say it, where it is really just a veiled threat, but really, there is jobs for all, and no cap to how many you need. If it is a profession that requires a degree or some ammount of training, education is now free under socialism. I think that if there is a job we have too many people for, or not enough, I think there would be sort of finacial incentive for, say, janitors. Not enough of theme? Give' em a raise. Too many journalists, or fashion designers? Give' em a pay cut. It would be sort of like a market for labor, (I know I am gunna get murdered for suggesting that one). Regulated democratically obviously.

[Pogue]

The Paris Commune is of vital importance and is definitely something we should seriously examine, because it demonstrated for the first time the institutional features that comprise socialist democracy, including delegates being subject to instant recall, and those same delegates being payed no more than the wage of the average worker, as well as the illusory division between economic and political power being eliminated. These features were put in place by the Communards and have also reappeared during the course of subsequent struggles when workers have sought to create organs of democratic power (most notably the Russian Revolution, in the form of Soviets, although further examples would be the Biennio Rosso in Italy during the period 1919-1920 as well as the Iranian Revolution of 1979 despite neither of these struggles leading to the conquest of power in the same way as the working class in Russia did - it's also noteworthy that the model of the Paris Commune was raised by the workers of Shanghai during the Cultural Revolution before they came under attack) because it is only through these features that the working class can hope to exercise its collective dictatorship and prevent the concentration of power in the hands of a minority. The fact that governments like the PRC and (from the 1920s onwards) the USSR did not display these features is, amongst other things, evidence that these governments had nothing to do with socialism.

Marx evidently thought the Paris Commune was important as well, otherwise he wouldn't have written an entire book on it, or identified it as the model for the dictatorship of the proletariat.

I disagree, socialism is not just about transformations in the distribution of resources (although transformations of that kind would probably be sufficient to change the world to a significant degree - I don't think a world without hunger would look the same as the world we have at the moment, if socialism didn't change the way the world looked by abolishing material hardship then it wouldn't be worth having) but, as a result of economic transformations, and the process of working people making themselves the subjects of their own history, will also give rise to transformations in culture and the way people interact with each other as individuals - in essence, every sphere of human experience. The Russian Revolution offers us only a glimpse of what living under socialism might be like because it resulted in an incredible albeit brief period of artistic and social experimentation, when people were able to question the way they and the rest of society had lived in the past and develop new ways of living, based on solidarity and authenticity. A comrade of mine once remarked that Russian art in the early 1920s is incredible not only because of its aesthetic quality but also because simply by looking at it (or listening to it as the case may be) you know that it was only possible because there was a revolution, and by the same token the process of bureaucratic degeneration manifested itself not only in political institutions becoming increasingly authoritarian and undemocratic, but also the restoration of old forms of art, and, from the 1930s onwards, the restoration of the family, and bourgeois morality, in place of collective forms of living.

I don't think it's utopian to say that we can't imagine what people will be like under socialism. The transition from feudalism to capitalism brought about its own significant changes but the changes that occur as a result as a result of the abolition of capitalism are likely to be even greater, due to class society itself being abolished, and not one form of class society being replaced by another.

Although I disagree with what Bob thinks about when the Russian revolution and when it degenerated this is a good post and a good response to anyone who doubts what socialism means.

[Dave B]

I thought Lenin did a fairly good take on what a communist society would look like;

V. I. Lenin

From the Destruction of the Old Social System

To the Creation of the New

April 11, 1920




During these two years we have acquired some experience in organisation on the basis of socialism. That is why we can, and should, get right down to the problem of communist labour, or rather, it would be more correct to say, not communist, but socialist labour; for we are dealing not with the higher, but the lower, the primary stage of development of the new social system that is growing out of capitalism.

Communist labour in the narrower and stricter sense of the term is labour performed gratis for the benefit of society, labour performed not as a definite duty, not for the purpose of obtaining a right to certain products, not according to previously established and legally fixed quotas, but voluntary labour, irrespective of quotas; it is labour performed without expectation of reward, without reward as a condition, labour performed because it has become a habit to work for the common good, and because of a conscious realisation (that has become a habit) of the necessity of working for the common good—labour as the requirement of a healthy organism.

It must be clear to everybody that we, i.e., our society, our social system, are still a very long way from the application of this form of labour on a broad, really mass scale.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/apr/11.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/apr/11.htm)

And from Trotsky;




"The material premise of communism should be so high a development of the economic powers of man that productive labor, having ceased to be a burden, will not require any goad, and the distribution of life's goods, existing in continual abundance, will not demand – as it does not now in any well-off family or "decent" boarding-house – any control except that of education, habit and social opinion. Speaking frankly, I think it would be pretty dull-witted to consider such a really modest perspective "utopian."




http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch03.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch03.htm)



And also from the Revisionist Joe Stalin;

ANARCHISM or SOCIALISM?


http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/AS07.html#c3 (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/AS07.html)

And from;
Works of Frederick Engels
Description of Recently Founded Communist Colonies Still in Existence


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/10/15.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/10/15.htm)

of which Engels said;


The Teutons are all still very muddled about the practicability of communism; to dispose of this absurdity I intend to write a short pamphlet showing that communism has already been put into practice and describing in popular terms how this is at present being done in England and America. [12] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1621973#n12) The thing will take me three days or so, and should prove very enlightening for these fellows. I’ve already observed this when talking to people here.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/letters/44_10_01.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/letters/44_10_01.htm)

[syndicat]

Same with hospitals, schools, banks, restaurants, gas stations, drug stores, department stores, etc. Of course the nature of some of these stores are specifically adapated to capitalist standards, and might have to be scraped in lue of a similar more socialist replacement. And the unused buildings and plots in your town would be developed to public use. And as I said, these stores would give the highest quality of goods/services possible, the lowest price possible, and the workers there recieve the highest wage possible. On Robo203's comment about alienation, no one is forcing you to work at a grocery store. You can work anywhere you want! Not in the way capitalists say it, where it is really just a veiled threat, but really, there is jobs for all, and no cap to how many you need. If it is a profession that requires a degree or some ammount of training, education is now free under socialism. I think that if there is a job we have too many people for, or not enough, I think there would be sort of finacial incentive for, say, janitors. Not enough of theme? Give' em a raise. Too many journalists, or fashion designers? Give' em a pay cut. It would be sort of like a market for labor, (I know I am gunna get murdered for suggesting that one). Regulated democratically obviously.

It seems you're describing a statist form of wage labor. This is not a socety without subordination and exploitation of the working class. To eliminate that will require that there is no longer such a job as "janitor" or "journalist."

Part of the class system is that there is a dominating class in corporate capitalism between the wealthy plutocrats at the top and the working class majority. This is the control bureaucracy or techno-managerial class...middle managers, engineers, doctors, lawyers, etc. Their privileged class position...their class power...derives from their relative monopolization of decision-making authority...in corporate and state hierarchies...and there are varous high end professionals whose expertise is important to their decision-making and planning and who work closely with them...lawyers breaking unions and defending legal interests of firm, accountants doing financial planning, engineers who design divisions of labor and equipment in ways that help to control labor.

This separation between the techno-managerial class and the working class would have to be done away with for the working class to liberate itself. This means the decision-maiking authority and expertise that is useful and now concentrated in this class will have to become a collective possession of the working class, through democratization of expertise, major changes in the educational and training systems, and redesign of the jobs.

If we look at the Russian revolution, we can see the origin of the bureaucratic ruling class in the very early moves of the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in the revolution. The big city soviets were structured in a top down way and the delegates of workers were treated as a mere rubber stamp, with power concentrated in executive committees controlled by the party intelligentsia. Then you had in Nov 1917 formation of Supreme Council for National Economy to plan whole national economy top-down, made up of experts, party leaders, union bureaucrats...all appointed from above. By 1920s this became Gosplan, the elite central planning agency...completely uncontrollable by working class. By early 1918 Lenin and Trotsky were beating the drum for Taylorism and one-man management. Taylorism isn't a technology but a management organizational technique where work is reorg'd to concentrate decision-making and expertise into a hierarchy, taking control from workers on the shop floor. It is a method to impose speedup and intensified pace of work.

By spring 1918 the worker militias were replaced with a conventional top down professional army with thousands of highly paid ex-czarist officers in control.

In all these moves you can see the beginnings of consolidation of an administrative layer...the emergence of what will become the Soviet dominating and exploiting class.

If the working class is to liberate itself, it needs to seize the means of production and re-org the industries under its direct, collective management and begin the change in the division of labor I referred to above. This includes things like massive training to improve people's knowledge and skills, coordinating commmittees elected from the base, and with people still working at least part of the time in their old jobs, alongside colleagues while doing this, and subject to recall and rotation from office.

A good example of what needs to happen would be the massive direct worker expropriation of industry in Spain in 1936...more than 18,000 companies, 14 million acres of cultivated land, thousands of urban buildings...the largest mass seizure of capitalist property by workers that has ever taken place. From there the workers need to consolidate political power through the dismantling of the old state and the creation of a new governance system under the direct control of the masses.

[ckaihatsu]

When I said "store" and "sell" I meant those really for lack of a better word.




The food in that store is not "owned" by that store, but owned by the whole of society. It is part of what Marx called the public fund. But there would be, (i don't real know what to call them), grocer repositories?




If in your town, where there are grocery stores, there probably still will be. They will just be nationalized, and as I said, subject to certain standards. Same with hospitals, schools, banks, restaurants, gas stations, drug stores, department stores, etc. Of course the nature of some of these stores are specifically adapated to capitalist standards, and might have to be scraped in lue of a similar more socialist replacement.


Sorry to nit-pick here, but I think we should open ourselves up to the possibilities of how distribution could *otherwise* be arranged once the fencing-in required by private property is abolished for good. I really don't think that the boxy, one-building retail-store model would last.

Perhaps the production and distribution steps would be more "clustered" in composition, where a general, large area (a portion of a city, towards its center) would feature many open-air processes that could easily be linked-up in any kind of impromptu needed configuration. Likewise, partially finished and fully finished products might just kind of openly circulate in the area, stacked up in some places until needed for the next step, or whisked around to the broader dwelling areas by whoever happens to be standing around and ready to pitch in for a little while....

With GPS and PDAs nothing could get lost or misplaced, and no one would necessarily have to be on *fixed* punchcard schedules. Everyone would have up-to-date information on what is where, and even on what finished batches may be circulating nearby for pick-up by end users. Even people themselves might be more in constant circulation, with much less need for fixed "home" dwellings....


Chris




--



--

--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Tearing up more shit than a weightless astronaut on the toilet --

[btpound]

Why does my interpretation keep being referred to as state capitalism. I am not trying to be antagonistic, I really would like to learn why I am wrong. If you could be detailed and specific as possible, I would really appreciate it.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I think this has been discussed many times before but does anyone here have a vision how a socialist/communist/anarchist society would look like, how it would function, etc oppose to our current capitalist society?

Typically I don't respond to these type of threads, but to briefly summarize and generalize on what I think a socialist society would look like:

- No white privilege and a lack of institutional racism
- No institutional sexism; gender roles commonly viewed of as archaic; people are judged as individuals
- No institutionalized homophobia or transphobia
- Family units are heterogeneous.
- The state (per its common definition) is a completely democratic organ of existance with little relliance on "representatives."
- Major industries are owned democratically and uniquely managed by those who work in said organization.

[robbo203]

Why does my interpretation keep being referred to as state capitalism. I am not trying to be antagonistic, I really would like to learn why I am wrong. If you could be detailed and specific as possible, I would really appreciate it.

It is "state capitalism" because capitalism and generalised wage labour are completely inseparable. Capitalism run by the state is still capitalism. Your scenario doesnt really envisage getting rid of the wages system which really is the key to it all as Marx pointed out (and why he called for the "abolition of the wages system"). Wage labour implies the existence of capital as a social relationship and hence capitalists. As members of the working class, we are economically compelled to sell our labour power for a wage because we are separated or divorced from the means of production. Wage labor thus signifiies the absence of common ownership and the presence of sectional or class ownership of the means of production. This incidentally is the reason why places like the Soviet Union, China, Cuba et al can accurately be described as state capitalist

[black magick hustla]

unless you are a marxist leninist, nobody knows how socialism will look. we obnly have hints from the labor movement. how the hell are we gonna know how to organize a future society? the discussion is going to happen in another time, and it will not only be "communist partisans" but engineers, doctors, janitors, scientists, industrial workers etc, because a few "militants" won't know about all the problems of life

[robbo203]

unless you are a marxist leninist, nobody knows how socialism will look. we obnly have hints from the labor movement. how the hell are we gonna know how to organize a future society? the discussion is going to happen in another time, and it will not only be "communist partisans" but engineers, doctors, janitors, scientists, industrial workers etc, because a few "militants" won't know about all the problems of life

A good point. However I think you need to differentiate between the general outline of a socialist/communist society and the specifics. You need common agreement on the former from the start, without which such a society could not be achieved . It cannot be imposed by some Leninist vanguard - that would simply result in the imposition of a new form of class society as happened in the state capitalist Soviet Union. However the specifics, the details , of such a society is something that necessarily has to be decided nearer the time. Which is not to decry the application of revolutionary imagination and utopian thinking. One of the finest peices of communist literature - William Morris' News From Nowhere is a fitting example of that.

[btpound]

It is "state capitalism" because capitalism and generalised wage labour are completely inseparable. Capitalism run by the state is still capitalism. Your scenario doesnt really envisage getting rid of the wages system which really is the key to it all as Marx pointed out (and why he called for the "abolition of the wages system"). Wage labour implies the existence of capital as a social relationship and hence capitalists. As members of the working class, we are economically compelled to sell our labour power for a wage because we are separated or divorced from the means of production. Wage labor thus signifiies the absence of common ownership and the presence of sectional or class ownership of the means of production. This incidentally is the reason why places like the Soviet Union, China, Cuba et al can accurately be described as state capitalist

What I am describing is only "capitalism" if there is a "market", which there is not. Like I said, there will still be "store" in a sense that there are people there getting paid an hourly "wage" for their labor, preforming a specific task accepting "money" for their goods or services. This is not a market however, because that would imply that there is competition, which would imply that there is private property, which there is not. The people at the mechanics shop don't "own" the machinery they are using, the state does, everyone does. The people at the grocery store don't "own" the food they sell either. All these things are part of what marx called the "public trust". It is a communal fund of products from the whole of society. The "wage" they receive is not a wage in the capitalist sence. It is a labour note that signifies the amout of labor they have preformed and how much they are owed from the public fund. This "wage" will probably be determined by the central federal government. Perhaps the word "wage" is not appropriat in this sence, but I don't know what else to call it. I don't live under socialism, I live under capitalism, so I tend to think of these things in those terms.

The diffrence between what I am describing and China, Russia, Cuba, and all those other states described as having state capitalism is they DO have a market. This market has strict regulations set by the state, but it is a market, which means private property, which means capitalism. Capitalism is just the name of the superstructure that arose from the property realtions that began in the marketplace. Eliminate the market, and you have elimiated capitalism, as far as property realtions go.

So I don't think what I am talking about is capitalism, bacuse it has none of the essensial ellements of capitalism, (i.e. bosses, private property, free market, etc.) But I think that it will be a shell of what capitalist society was, in form but not in substance. Past that point there is not telling how humanity will develop in a free society. It would be like trying to calulate the gravitational pull of planets we cannot see, or even know where they are located in the universe in relation to other heavenly bodies.

[robbo203]

What I am describing is only "capitalism" if there is a "market", which there is not. Like I said, there will still be "store" in a sense that there are people there getting paid an hourly "wage" for their labor, preforming a specific task accepting "money" for their goods or services. This is not a market however, because that would imply that there is competition, which would imply that there is private property, which there is not. The people at the mechanics shop don't "own" the machinery they are using, the state does, everyone does. The people at the grocery store don't "own" the food they sell either. All these things are part of what marx called the "public trust". It is a communal fund of products from the whole of society. The "wage" they receive is not a wage in the capitalist sence. It is a labour note that signifies the amout of labor they have preformed and how much they are owed from the public fund. This "wage" will probably be determined by the central federal government. Perhaps the word "wage" is not appropriat in this sence, but I don't know what else to call it. I don't live under socialism, I live under capitalism, so I tend to think of these things in those terms.
.

Well then I think all of the terms you are using are misleading and inappropriate. If there is buying and selling then there is clearly a "market". If there are "wages" then there is clearly a market for labour power . If there is "money" then there is clearly economic exchange - money being inter alia a means of exchange - which in turn implies the existence of owners and non-owners of whatever it that is being exchanged - in direct contradiction to your claim that there will be a "communal fund of products from the whole of society". If there is common ownership there cannot logically be economic "exchange" or any of the phenomena associated with exchange - money, wages. markets and so on.

Reading between the lines I think what you are getting at is what Marx called his "lower" phase of communism (Critique of the Gotha Programme). This involved the use of labour vouchers or certificates but these did not constitute money since they did not circulate and there was no wage labour in this lower phase - if there was it wouldnt be communism but just another variant of capitalism.

So I think you need to make this clear by dropping all reference to money, wages and so on

[LeninistKing]

The problem is that worldsocialism.org is too utopian and too sectarian. They hate Lenin, Chavez and Castro

.



Depends what you mean by socialism. Up until the early 20th centruy it commonly meant more or less the same ting as as communism - a moneyless wageless stateless commonwealth based on common ownership of the productive forces. Morris Kropotkin, Marx and Engels all used socialism in this sense. Even Stalin described a socialist society as a society without buying or selling!

For a reasonable description of what such a society would be look like here is a peice from an old SPGB pamphlet Questions of the Day

(http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/QOD/quod17.html)
What Socialism means

SOCIALISM is the only system within which the problems which now face workers can be solved; but what will it be like? Socialism is a system in which the means for producing and distributing wealth will be owned by society as a whole. Under capitalism the land, factories, offices, mines, railways and other instruments of production and distribution are monopolised by a section of society only, who thus form a privileged class. Socialism will end this, for, with the means of life ownedin common by the entire community, it will be a classless society in which the exploitation and oppression of man by man will have been abolished. All human beings will be social equals, freely able to co-operate in running social affairs.

Drawing up a detailed blueprint for Socialism is premature, since the exact forms will depend upon the technical conditions and preferences of those who set up and live in Socialism; but we can broadly define the essential features of Socialism.

Socialism can only be democratic. At one time Socialism was known also as 'social democracy', a phrase which shows well that democratic control would extend to all aspects of social affairs, including the production and distribution of wealth. There is an old socialist slogan which speaks of 'government over people' giving way 'to the administration of things'; meaning that the public power of coercion, and the government which operates it will have no place in Socialism. The State, which is an organisation composed of soldiers, policemen, judges and gaolers charged with enforcing the laws, is only needed in class society for in such societies there is no community of interest, only class conflict. The purpose of govenmeat is to maintain law and order in the interests of the dominant class. It is in fact an instrument of class oppression. In Socialism there will be no classes and no built-in class conflicts: everybody will have the same basic social interest. There will be genuine social harmony and community of interest. In these circumstances there is no need for any coercive machine to govern or rule over people. The phrase 'socialist government' is a contradiction in terms. Where there is Socialism there is no government and where there is government there is no Socialism.

Those who wrongly assume that government and administration are one and the same will have some difficulty in imagining a society without government. A society without administration would indeed be impossible since 'society' implies that human beings organise themselves to provide for their needs. But a society without government is both possible and desirable. Socialism will in fact mean the extension of democratic administration to all aspects of social life on the basis of the common ownership of the means of production and distribution. There will be administrative centres which will be clearing-houses for settling social affairs by majority decision.

But will not the administrators become the new ruling class? Democratic organisation does indeed involve the delegation of functions to groups and individuals. Such people will be charged by the community with organising necessary social functions. They will be chosen by the community and will be answerable to it. Those who perform the administrative functions in Socialism would be in no position to dominate. They will not be regarded as superior persons, as tends to be the case today, but as social equals doing an essential job. Nor will they have at their command armies and policemen to enforce their will. There will be no opportunity for bribery and corruption since everybody, including those in administrative jobs, will have free access to the stock of wealth set aside for individual consumption. The material conditions for the rise of a new ruling class would not exist.

The purpose of socialist production will be simply and solely to satisfy human needs. Under present arrangements production is for the market with a view to profit. This will be replaced by production solely and directly for use. The production and distribution of sufficient wealth to meet the needs of the socialist community as individuals and as a community will be an administrative and organisational problem. It will be no small problem but the tools for solving it have already been created by capitalism.

Capitalism has developed technology and social productivity to the point where plenty for all can be produced. A society of abundance has long been technically pcssible and it is this that is the material basis for Socialism. Capitalism, because it is a class society with production geared to profit-making rather than meeting human needs, cannot make full use of the world-wide productive system it has built up over the past two hundred or so years. Socialism, making full use of the developed methods of production, will alter the purpose of production. Men and women will be producing wealth solely to meet their needs, and not for the profit of a privileged few.

Using techniques for predicting social wants (at present prostituted to the service of capital), a socialist society can work out how much and what sort of products and services will be needed over a given period. Men and women will be free to discuss what they would like to be produced. So with social research and after democratic discussion an estimate of what is needed can be made. The next problem is to arrange for these amounts to be produced. Capitalism, with its modern computing machines and input-output analysis, has developed the techniques which a socialist society can use.

When the wealth has been produced, apart from that needed to renew and expand the means of production, all will freely take what they feel they need to live and enjoy life. This is what we mean by 'free access'. There will be no buying and selling, and hence no need for money. What communities and individuals want does not vary greatly except over long periods, and it will be a simple administrative task to see that the stores are well-stocked with what people need. If any shortages develop they will not last long. Planned reserves will be held as a safeguard agzins; unforeseen natural disasters.

'Fron each according to his ability, to each according to his need' is another long-standing socialist principle. It means what it says: that men and women will freely take part in social production to the best of their abilities, and freely take from the fruits of their common labour whatever they need.

Confronted for the first time with this proposal for free distribution according to need, many people are sceptical. What about the lazy man? Or the greedy man? Who will do the dirty work? What will be the incentive to work? These are objections socialists hear time and time again. These are perhaps understandable reactions to what seems, to those who have never thought about it, a startling proposition. As a matter of fact, behind these objections is a carefully cultivated popular prejudice as to what human nature is. We dealt with this earlier in the section on human nature. Suffice it to say here that biological and social science and anthropological research conclusively show that so-called human nature is not a barrier to the establishment of Socialism.

Work, or the expenditure of energy, is both a biological and a social must for human beings. They must work to use up the energy generated by eating food. They must work also to provide the food, clothing and shelter they need to live. So in any society, be it feudal, capitalist or socialist, men and women must work. The point at issue is how that work should be organised. A very strong argument against capitalism is that it reduces so central a human activity as work to the drudgery it is for most people, instead of allowing it to provide the pleasure it could, and would in a socialist society.

To suggest that work could be pleasant often raises a laugh; but this only shows how much capitalism has degraded human life. Most, but certainly not all work under capitalism is done in the service of an employer so that people almost without thinking identify work with employment. Working for an employer is always degrading, often boring and unpleasant and sometimes unhealthy and dangerous. But even under capitalism not all work, as we have defined it, is done in the course of employment. Men and women are working when they clean their cars, dig their gardens, or pursue their hobbies and enjoy themselves at the same time. So close is the misleading association of work with employment that many would not even regard such activities as work. They think that anything that is pleasant cannot by definition be work!

There is no reason at all why the work of producing and distributing useful things cannot be as enjoyable as are leisure-time activities today. The physical conditions under which work is done can be vastly improved. So can the relationships between people at work. Human beings, as free and equal members of a socialist community, will no longer have to sell their mental and physical energies to an employer for a wage or salary. The degrading wages system will be abolished so that there will be no such thing as employment. Instead work will be done by free men and women co-operating and controlling their conditions of work, getting enjoyment from creating things and doing socially useful tasks.

In a socialist society there will be no social stigma attaching to any kind of work. Nor will there be pressures, as exist at present (because they are cheap and therefore profitable to the capitalists) to continue industrial processes which are harmful or dangerous to those engaged in them. In any event, with human needs and enjoyment as the guiding principle, there will be no need for anybody to be tied to the same job continuously. The opportunities for men and women to develop and exercise their talents and to enjoy doing so will be immense.

Finally, Socialism must be world-wide because the productive system which capitalism has built up and which a socialist society will take over is already international. There will be no frontiers and people will be free to travel over the whole earth. Socialism will mean an end to all national oppression - and, indeed, in its current political sense to all 'nations' — and to discriminations on the grounds of race and sex. All the people of the world, wherever they live, whatever their skin colour, whatever language they speak, really will be members of one vast human family. Socialism will at last realise the ags-old dream of the Brotherhood of Man.

[robbo203]

The problem is that worldsocialism.org is too utopian and too sectarian. They hate Lenin, Chavez and Castro

.


Whatever your criticisms of the WSM - and I have one or two - they stand head and shoulders above virtually every organisation I know if in the clarity of their vision of a future socialist society and in the cogency of the arguments they advance in its support.

Most of the left, frankly, havent got a clue. Many are just straightforward reformists or cling dogmatically to the now utterly discredited state capitalist route to socialism . Anyone who doesnt share their blinkered view is dismissed as sectarian

Dismissing the WSM as utopian and sectarian is a cop-out. I find such criticisms irritating and completely missing the point. The one thing we actually need is more utopian thinking, more in the way of seeking to grasp the bigger picture, more willingness to engage in the kind of historical imagination that real revolutions are made of. This pissy sterile pragmatism of left wing reformists who take their cue from the capitalist career politicians about the presumed need to be "realistic", reeks of defeatism, of caving in to the reality of capitalism. Well sod that! Give me the old impossibilist slogan any day - "Be realistic, demand the impossible!"

Utopia is just a Greek word for "nowhere". That actually describes socialism. Only by seeking out this utopia will we ever achieve socialism

[Dave B]

As a personal opinion.


The world socialist movement wouldn’t deny that when it comes to ‘self described Marxist organisations’ that they are completely different to all the others, or sectarian if you like.

Even if we might share some common ground with other Marxist trains of thought eg the council communists and the Deleonists.

We are not in fact I think fully orthodox Marxists in the sense that we are impossiblists and are against reformism.

As to our utopianism it is in some way ironic that we are in fact closer to the Bolsheviks and pre 1917 Leninism than present day Leninists are themselves.

So for instance we can appreciate and recognise as similar to our own, the ‘utopian’ and un-revised conception of socialism as outlined by the Bolshevik Joe Stalin in

ANARCHISM or SOCIALISM?

http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/AS07.html#c3 (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/AS07.html)

Nor do we, as in the ‘propagandist and agitational literature of present-day Leninism’, view Engels attitude towards the sate as some kind of utopian iconoclasm.
Pg 16-7

http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/SR17.html (http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/SR17.html)

In fact the present world socialist movement’s ‘utopian’ position on the issue of the abolition of the wages system was mainstream not all that long ago and to suggest or even to imply that that was not what it was all about then was ‘outrageous’.

So coming from Hyndman of the SDF, from which the SPGB was a ‘far left’ split.



A much more serious objection to Kropotkin and other Anarchists is their wholly unscrupulous habit of reiterating statements that have been repeatedly proved to be incorrect, and even outrageous, by the men and women to whom they are attributed. Time after time I have told Kropotkin, time after time has he read it in print, that Social-Democrats work for the complete overthrow of the wages system. He has admitted this to be so. But a month or so afterwards the same old oft-refuted misrepresentation appears in the same old authoritative fashion, as if no refutation of the calumny, that we wish to maintain wage-slavery, had ever been made. There is evidently, as we might expect from their doctrines, close community of sentiment and method between Anarchists and Liberals.

http://www.marxists.org/archian go ve/hyndman/1911/adventure/chap15.html (http://www.marxists.org/archive/hyndman/1911/adventure/chap15.html)


Another objection to the ‘SPGB’ from some, is our small party of good boy’s legalistic attitude towards the participation in bourgeois democracy.


However in that respect we are only good little ‘Marxists’ in the sense that we can go along with the substance of;


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/class-struggles-france/intro.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/class-struggles-france/intro.htm)


And to some extent, from the ‘bronze ax’ quote;


But in the measure in which it matures towards its self-emancipation, in the same measure it constitutes itself as its own party and votes for its own representatives, not those of the capitalists. Universal suffrage is thus the gauge of the maturity of the working class. It cannot and never will be anything more in the modern state; but that is enough. On the day when the thermometer of universal suffrage shows boiling-point among the workers, they as well as the capitalists will know where they stand.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch09.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch09.htm)

Another contemporary neo ‘Leninist’ criticism of the ‘SPGB’ is that we over emphasise the importance for the working class of a ‘theoretical’ understanding of how capitalism works and the ‘utopian’ concept of an alternative.


What we should be doing instead is getting more engaged in day to day economic struggles of the working class and let the development of any spontaneous working class consciousness that may come from that look after itself.


Tying to tell the workers about ‘utopian’ socialism, like Joe did, when they are not ready for it, even if you understand it yourself, is a waste of time.


Actually that was exactly the position of the so-called ‘economists’ that Lenin and the Bolsheviks criticised, as do ironically to some extent, as accused, does the SPGB.


Although to be fair to the ‘economists’ they had a justification as regarding what ‘Marxists’ could reasonably do and achieve within a feudal system when communism is out of reach and something for tomorrow.


Although as a self described virulent anti Leninist I wouldn’t want to leave an impression of a close association with Bolshevism, pre 1917, theoretical or not.



.

[Ben Seattle]

I have written about this in: "Politics, Economics and the Mass Media when the working class runs the show" (see link below)

Contents:
• Will there be elections and competing parties?
• The three economic sectors (private capitalist • state capitalist • gift economy)
• The evolution of the mass media (commercial media • state media • free media)

[Communist Theory]

Like 1984 only better.