Another 'State' thread....

[RadioRaheem84]

I am wondering how the notion of socialism became conflated with the state taking over the means of production. It seems like we cannot advocate our views without someone or everyone in a targeted group assume that by socialism, I don't mean workers control of the means of production but state control. Was this due to the Marxist Leninist doctrine and its other variants; Maoism, Trotskyism? OR perhaps Social Democracy, etc?

First off, how many in here believe in the state intervention in the economy and is it a good thing before I go off telling people it's usually not?

What exactly is it that we're advocating here?

[Luisrah]

I'd say that a strong, true socialist state will make everything much more fair than any capitalist system. Though it's possible it's corrupt or whatever.

But what matters is:
As long as the government truly represents the interests of the working class, and it does not opress them and is made of the working class or it's most conscious members, I don't see any problem with the state regulating the economy, since the working class HAS become the dominant class and truly benefits itself.

[revolution inaction]

I am wondering how the notion of socialism became conflated with the state taking over the means of production. It seems like we cannot advocate our views without someone or everyone in a targeted group assume that by socialism, I don't mean workers control of the means of production but state control. Was this due to the Marxist Leninist doctrine and its other variants; Maoism, Trotskyism? OR perhaps Social Democracy, etc?


i dont really know enough to answar this buti suspect that the leninists have done the most to perpetuate this idea, since some of them accturaly ran states that claimed to be socialist.



First off, how many in here believe in the state intervention in the economy and is it a good thing before I go off telling people it's usually not?

What exactly is it that we're advocating here?

that depends who you are talking to here, anarchists and other kinds of libertatian socialists will most likely agree with you, but the leninists will tend so support state control, often accompanied by the ridicules claim that the workers can control the state.
So your going to need to decide what kind of socialism you support.

[RadioRaheem84]

So your going to need to decide what kind of socialism you support.

I am leaning more toward libertarian socialism.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Marxism-Leninism, as employed in its 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' form, is responsible for this misguided notion that Socialism is somehow about nobody being allowed to do, own or think anything anti-state or anti-party, to some extent, in that it aided the Capitalist propaganda, of the likes of Joseph McCarthy, Rupert Murdoch and Glenn Beck, that any government interference or expansion of the state is a step towards Socialism, or 'Socialistic', let us say, which is clearly a falsehood.

State intervention in a Capitalist economy is the lesser of two evils. I know there are some impossibilists out there who will not support any 'workerist' movement, but the fact of the matter is that there are people suffering out there right now, and their lives should not be sacrificed for what is becoming an increasingly elusive, mythical, utopian ideal.

Having said that, when the conditions are ripe for the fermentation of revolution (Capitalist economic crisis, the exposing of it as a crude, terrorist system, and the subsequent rise in working class consciousness), one cannot allow the same mistakes to be made that were made by previous states that proclaimed themselves Socialist.

The USSR failed, Maoism was defeated, largely, in the PRC, the GDR collapsed feebly and the DPRK degenerated into a dictatorship of a despotic clan. There is a reason for this, and as people who supposedly analyse history from a scientific point of view, we should be able to rise above the general Socialist dogmatic defence of 'Counter-revolutionaries destroyed us, circling forces of imperialism...etc.', because that is what leads to sectarianism and the Socialist movement turning in on itself instead of uniting to forward the Socialist cause.

We must move straight away to an unconditional democratic political system. IMO, the economic achievements of the USSR, PRC, Cuba and to an extent the GDR are to be recognised as genuine and admirable. It is not for these economic reasons, largely, that the USSR, PRC and GDR failed to advance Socialism beyond a primitive form, largely distant from communism. It is because their political systems did not countenance democracy. I'm not talking about a multi-party electoral facade, or pandering to the notion of 'allowing opposition.' I'm talking about avoiding nepotism, rampant bureaucracy becoming entrenched, and so on. It is ridiculous that the likes of Stalin, Mao, Brezhnev, Ulbricht and Honecker kept their positions for so many years. Not because they necessarily all did a bad job, but it is clear that none of them was so outstanding as to merit decades as the 'leader' of the nation. Indeed, a singular 'leader' of a Socialist entity is a somewhat juxtaposing notion to begin with. Although there must be a group of people enabled with executive power, it is somewhat anti-Socialist to allow a single figure to head an executive body for such a long period, unless you believe in messianic type figures, in which case you perhaps belong more in a Church than a Socialist Republic. No, what is needed is a rotation of figures holding key national and regional positions of political executive power, so that 'Politics' does not become a field in itself, so as to discourage careerist lackeys, and the notion of entrenched bureaucracy, which IMO is one of the gravest 'threats from within', so to speak, to any blossoming Socialist nation.

[(A)narcho-Matt]

I am wondering how the notion of socialism became conflated with the state taking over the means of production. It seems like we cannot advocate our views without someone or everyone in a targeted group assume that by socialism, I don't mean workers control of the means of production but state control. Was this due to the Marxist Leninist doctrine and its other variants; Maoism, Trotskyism? OR perhaps Social Democracy, etc?

First off, how many in here believe in the state intervention in the economy and is it a good thing before I go off telling people it's usually not?

What exactly is it that we're advocating here?


A lot of it is to do with anti-soviet, anti-communist propaganda that has become ingraned in western society. However, it also comes from the way capitalists see the nature of property. They would see property as an enabler, and a safeguard of individual liberty. We Know thats wrong, but to someone who has grown up being tought these things, the idea of all property being held in common, or by the state is horrific. Communists need to counter this view by explaining that private property allows for the liberty of the few at the expense of the rest, where as property held in common by the people allows for the liberty of all.

Whilst I would never argue for state capitalism, within the context of current capitalist modes of production the existence of state run health services is a much better option than a rampant market in health care. However, what we advocate isnt simply the state taking control of everything, but workers self management. Its for this reason that I would reject the idea of socialism as a stage building towards communism, as well as the idea of a socialist state. There is a tendency for socialists to view the state as a neutral actor, that the workers can use the state to create social revolution and equlity. This ignores the fact that the state is an organ for the advancement of the interests of the ruling class (either the bourgeoisie or the Socialist-State bureaucracy and party leaders). Writing about "the state and marxism" Bakunin wrote that:

"at the end of a certain period of transition which will be neccessary to let society pass without too great political and economic shocks from the present organisation of bourgeois privilage to the future organisation of the official equality of all - the state will also be the only capitalist, banker, money lender, organiser, director of all national labour and distributor of its products."

Whilst socialism would not neccessarily degenerate into state capitalism, the socialist state would prevent the working class from achieveing communism and workers self management because if power is held centrally within a state or party beurocracy, then those institutions have power over the working class, even if governing in the name of the working class. In which case in order to achieve communism, there would have to be a second revolution to remove the socialist state and implement communism. Therefore any communist revolution must first build the social revolution and the empowerment of the working class and advocate workers self management through a system of community and workers councils which are voluntarily federated with each other.

[RadioRaheem84]

This ignores the fact that the state is an organ for the advancement of the interests of the ruling class (either the bourgeoisie or the Socialist-State bureaucracy and party leaders). Writing about "the state and marxism" Bakunin wrote that:

I totally agree with that. I guess I am officially a Libertarian Socialist. Now I can fill in my Tendency box.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Anarcho-Matt: As much as I don't agree with your anarchist analysis of the situation - I am a believer in Socialism as a stage towards the more long-term vision of a classless society (although I do not adhere to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, which has become somewhat skewed by Leninists into something which is a literal dictatorship by a 'Socialist' bureaucratic clique). However, I would say that you are right in your more possibilist attitude - certainly under Capitalism, a state run healthcare, education etc., is infinitely more preferable than a market run one. In terms of 'nationalisation', however, we must go further than 'state = good, market = bad.' This is what gave rise to the bureaucracies of the USSR and GDR. You are absolutely correct, therefore, when you say, "what we advocate isnt simply the state taking control of everything, but workers self management." However, I would argue that using such logic, one can defend Socialism as a stage towards Communism; of course, we must be careful of historical precedent - that revolutions of a Socialist nature have tended to become either State Capitalist or highly bureaucratic and un-inclusive of workers' participatory/grassroots democracy. However, Socialism as a transitional stage towards Communism, in the form of workers' self-management, in the form of absolute democracy and in the form of crushing the counter-revolution and establishing Socialism as the norm, is surely something that we must strive for, rather than dismantling the state straight away.

[Wobblie]

I am wondering how the notion of socialism became conflated with the state taking over the means of production. It seems like we cannot advocate our views without someone or everyone in a targeted group assume that by socialism, I don't mean workers control of the means of production but state control. Was this due to the Marxist Leninist doctrine and its other variants; Maoism, Trotskyism? OR perhaps Social Democracy, etc?
No, it comes straight from the Communist Manifesto, written by Karl Marx of course.


The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.


First off, how many in here believe in the state intervention in the economy and is it a good thing before I go off telling people it's usually not?
Some times it's a necessity. I think that the government can be a great tool in making people's lives better (Social Security and Medicare are good examples), and when the economy begins to falter (which all capitalist economies will) I think that the government stepping in and creating jobs and trying to lift the market off the ground is a good thing. I would rather see the working class have jobs, keep our homes, our health care, etc. than go with out them simply because of some ideological opposition to the state. However, nothing the government does will fix the overarching problems that capitalism creates. These are only like band-aids on the symptoms, but they are not curing the disease (and they never will since the state is just the executive of the capitalist class, ever watchful to not upset the masters). And organizing unions around these issues helps to train people in the revolutionary cause. It helps them to understand that the state has opposing interests, that the people must make the change they deserve, and that they can. So, the push for these reforms are good only in that it helps us towards the ultimate goal of revolution.

[Ovi]

However, Socialism as a transitional stage towards Communism, in the form of workers' self-management, in the form of absolute democracy and in the form of crushing the counter-revolution and establishing Socialism as the norm, is surely something that we must strive for, rather than dismantling the state straight away.
Not that I want to be offtopic, but what exactly is a state for if the economy is managed democratically by the workers?

[Spencer]

Hi,


Don't know whether or not you're aware of it but you might be interested in this:

marxists . org / archive / lafargue / 1882 / 06 / socnat.htm


Personally I think that his comments at the end are most interesting/relevent:



This method of utilising the social means of production could only be a passing one, imposed by the difficulties amidst which the workers’ party will have to struggle on the morrow of the revolution. But we can perceive a period wherein, with the needs of consumption and the powers of production scientifically calculated, consumption as well as production will be free. There will be neither wages nor market prices. Human society will then once more enter the period of communism.


Indeed, only a 'possibilist' professor, ignorant of social conditions and steeped in bourgeois prejudices, could offer the nationalisation of public services as the Socialist ideal.


Like in the Manifesto, Lafargue envisions a situation where this kind of thing is only of interest to a socialist working class if they gain political supremacy but are unable to produce goods, services etc. on a scale that would allow free access.


I suppose the point is, if socialism is a society in which the means of producing and distributing wealth are held in common by all, democratically controlled by all and where everything that is produced is freely available to all, why suggest that nationalisation/state intervention has anything to do with socialism? And if it has nothing to do with socialism why should a socialist promote it at all?


Confusing nationalisation and socialism is obviously older than the states set up in Russia, Eastern Europe and elsewhere (the article above was written in 1882), even if they have contributed to it significantly. Seems to me all sorts of groups and people claim to be socialist, when they have nothing in common with each other. I guess, more than anything else, the most important thing is to be clear what you mean when you use the word 'socialism', and don't feel that you need to apologise for what other people call socialism.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Not that I want to be offtopic, but what exactly is a state for if the economy is managed democratically by the workers?

To stave off the return of Capitalism. I will elaborate after this next paragraph:

I draw a difference between this, and a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, per se. The historical problem with a Dictatorship of the Proletariat is that it has been used as an excuse to suspend democracy. Thus, the dominant tendency has assigned its own meaning to 'counter-revolutionary.' In the USSR, this was born out by the purging of all those who were not strict adherents to Marxism-Leninism, even those who were Socialists of other tendencies. This is something which must be absolutely abhorred by all, and a historical mistake that must not be repeated.

In essence, it is clearly not Trotskyists or the like who will bring back Capitalism. It is not the small petty bourgeoisie, or a few disgruntled technical workers. It is big business; the economic elites and the ex-political elites, who are in cahoots and indeed sometimes, as in the US, overlap. One only has to look to the multitide of historical examples to see that, unfortunately, Capitalism will not die lying down. Look to the Civil War in the USSR, the military coup in Chile, and the various attempts at assassination of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. As such, the state can only be dismantled (a task made easier if there is true workers democracy, and comparatively impossible if a bureacratic clique is entrenched) when this Capitalist threat of counter-revolution has been emphatically defeated.

[RadioRaheem84]

Some times it's a necessity. I think that the government can be a great tool in making people's lives better (Social Security and Medicare are good examples), and when the economy begins to falter (which all capitalist economies will) I think that the government stepping in and creating jobs and trying to lift the market off the ground is a good thing. I would rather see the working class have jobs, keep our homes, our health care, etc. than go with out them simply because of some ideological opposition to the state. However, nothing the government does will fix the overarching problems that capitalism creates. These are only like band-aids on the symptoms, but they are not curing the disease (and they never will since the state is just the executive of the capitalist class, ever watchful to not upset the masters). And organizing unions around these issues helps to train people in the revolutionary cause. It helps them to understand that the state has opposing interests, that the people must make the change they deserve, and that they can. So, the push for these reforms are good only in that it helps us towards the ultimate goal of revolution.

Actually I was talking more about the state capitalism of the USSR.

But you're right I wouldn't oppose government intervention in certain markets like health care, education, natural resources, etc.

The point was as a means to an end?

[Wobblie]

Actually I was talking more about the state capitalism of the USSR.
Oh, well state capitalism is just as bad as capitalism. Having the party leaders being the capitalists rather than the bosses isn't any better.



But you're right I wouldn't oppose government intervention in certain markets like health care, education, natural resources, etc.

The point was as a means to an end?
Yes, reforms are just a means to the greater end, revolution. Like what Rosa Luxemburg said, "The practical struggle for reforms, for the amelioration of the conditions of the workers within the framework of the existing social order, and for democratic institutions, offers Social Democracy the only means of engaging in the proletarian class struggle and working in the direction of the final goal - the conquest of political power and the suppression of wage labor. For Social Democracy there exists an indissoluble tie between social reforms and revolution. The struggle for reforms is its means; the social revolution, its goal."

[MarxSchmarx]

Well, put simply, if under socialism, the workers control the state and the state controls the means of production, then the workers control the ....

[Mike Russell]

Actually I was talking more about the state capitalism of the USSR.


Before i start, i will say i didnt read everyones post. I just kinda skimmed through. Hope i dont repeat anything.

But i do think that the idea of state capitalism is intresting. Alot of people link 'state capitalism' with the soviet planned economy. Theres a few ways to try to understand what the soviet union's economy was. i think the most important way to look at the economy is to look at the commanding height of the econmy and how its run. what is the reason, the objective for producing something.

Under capitalism, the reason to produce something is for profit. To make money. No capitalist really cares about what they produce. they look at the profit margins. If farming dog crap was profitable, under capitalism, they would. Profit is the objective. the only objective.

But a planned economy is different. the objective, the reason to produce something is for need. now, of course, it takes into account the cost of production, but the reason why its produced is based off a need for its production. Its not linked to profits because it isnt based on if people can afford it.
Now, when we look of the Stalinized planned economy, why were things produced? I think that we can conclude that they produced things to build the industral infrastructure of the soviet states. The reason wasnt because of profit, but the need to build the productive levels. They did this becasue capitalism was unable to do this(because it was profit based) prior it 1917.

But, the planned economy wasnt based off of workers democracy(for real reasons, I.E. the invasions. most workers fought and died in the war). so what was produced was what the stalinist wanted to produce so as to build the country to keep themselves in power. Once the economy grew to the point that it was matured, it need to focus of quality, not quantity. that took production planning from the bottom up, not top down.

what i just said was really too short to really look at the soviet system. people want links of more through article, i can provide.

AS for the state. i think that question is, if theres a revolution, will the capitalist try to smash it? will they pick up guns and tanks against the workers planned economy? i think they will and always have. thats why a workers state is need until capitalism is sweeped away all together. then the state will become pointless. but that state isnt like the state of of the capitlaist type. once the planed economy controls the worlds economy, it will fade away because we'd vote to allot less money to the state machine. cut funding till its gone.

in reality, the anarchist where a type of state in the spanish revolution. they used force to smash fascist. Thats why i respect the anarchist comrades for trying to fight for workers democracy.

its was long, sorry. and i bet i misspelled alot. im at work and wrote fast.

comradely,
mike.

[RadioRaheem84]

Yes, reforms are just a means to the greater end, revolution. Like what Rosa Luxemburg said, "The practical struggle for reforms, for the amelioration of the conditions of the workers within the framework of the existing social order, and for democratic institutions, offers Social Democracy the only means of engaging in the proletarian class struggle and working in the direction of the final goal - the conquest of political power and the suppression of wage labor. For Social Democracy there exists an indissoluble tie between social reforms and revolution. The struggle for reforms is its means; the social revolution, its goal."

So lets say workers achieve enough reform to where you have social democracy like Sweden, then would that set up the ground for workers to take over the means of production? Would revolution be favorable there for the workers? Would taking over the means of production (i.e. workers taking over private business and keeping them private) but maintaining the social democratic reforms (free health care, education, etc.), would that in essence be a Socialist country?

[Ovi]

Look to the Civil War in the USSR, the military coup in Chile, and the various attempts at assassination of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. As such, the state can only be dismantled (a task made easier if there is true workers democracy, and comparatively impossible if a bureacratic clique is entrenched) when this Capitalist threat of counter-revolution has been emphatically defeated.
But the whole point is that without a state there won't be any Chavez or Castro to assassinate in the first place. There are no longer any weak parts to attack.

[(A)narcho-Matt]

To stave off the return of Capitalism. I will elaborate after this next paragraph:

I draw a difference between this, and a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, per se. The historical problem with a Dictatorship of the Proletariat is that it has been used as an excuse to suspend democracy. Thus, the dominant tendency has assigned its own meaning to 'counter-revolutionary.' In the USSR, this was born out by the purging of all those who were not strict adherents to Marxism-Leninism, even those who were Socialists of other tendencies. This is something which must be absolutely abhorred by all, and a historical mistake that must not be repeated.

In essence, it is clearly not Trotskyists or the like who will bring back Capitalism. It is not the small petty bourgeoisie, or a few disgruntled technical workers. It is big business; the economic elites and the ex-political elites, who are in cahoots and indeed sometimes, as in the US, overlap. One only has to look to the multitide of historical examples to see that, unfortunately, Capitalism will not die lying down. Look to the Civil War in the USSR, the military coup in Chile, and the various attempts at assassination of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. As such, the state can only be dismantled (a task made easier if there is true workers democracy, and comparatively impossible if a bureacratic clique is entrenched) when this Capitalist threat of counter-revolution has been emphatically defeated.


But surely defence of the revolution can take place without the state. If there was a revolutionary event it would be a certainty that the capitalist class will take up arms against the workers, however the capitalist counter revolution can not be used as legitimising a vanguard party from seizing control of the Revolution. Meeting counter revolution with counter revolution only serves the purpose of the vanguard party. Defence of the revolution can be achieved through militias organised by the workers themselves.

[Spencer]

But surely defence of the revolution can take place without the state.


Defence of the revolution can be achieved through militias organised by the workers themselves.



Not really a direct criticism of what you've said (not exactly hot on the vanguard myself) and I apologise if it goes too far off topic, but the thing I don't understand is, why not openly admit that these militias are nothing more than a means of enforcing the interests of a socialist working class? From one view, it is the capitalists who are 'defending' themselves, that is, they are defending their position in society and their 'right' to exploit. Would you say that a revolution is an act of self defence on the part of the working class?



Certainly I don't see what possible role these militias could serve in a socialist society and I don't see that there is anything inherently 'good' or useful about them, so there is absolutely no reason to pretend to ourselves that they'd be anything other than a blunt instrument with which to crush any violent opposition. Conversely though if they exist to 'defend the revolution' or better yet 'defend the gains of the revolution', then it might be possible to argue that they need to exist past the initial expropriation of the master class. By this I mean that any issue of defending the revolution would place this defence after the day was won, and their purpose might be to maintain vigilance against the threat of a resurgent capitalism, especially when the beginning and end points of the revolution are likely to be hard to define if it involves a direct confrontation with the state.



Of course, part of this is me playing devils advocate, but it strikes me as inconsistent with anarchist libertarianism to want to create an organisation/institution/whatever that performs the task of some of the most repressive parts of the capitalist state (police/armed forces) without placing serve limitations on it. Perhaps you might think I'm being a little over sensitive on the issue, but the need for 'defence' is the standard justification for any kind of armed body of men.



Cheers.

[Thirsty Crow]

I am wondering how the notion of socialism became conflated with the state taking over the means of production. It seems like we cannot advocate our views without someone or everyone in a targeted group assume that by socialism, I don't mean workers control of the means of production but state control. Was this due to the Marxist Leninist doctrine and its other variants; Maoism, Trotskyism? OR perhaps Social Democracy, etc?

I'd advocate a theory which is quite simplistic as it can be watered down to one "principle": it was the easiest solution, regardless of Marx's famous statement that the proletariat cannot simply lay hold of the already existing machinery of control. It's an easy way out when it comes to Marxist-Leninist and other "authoritarian" tendencies derived from it in today's modern rep democracies (OK, accuse me of sectarianism, but I do in fact think that one can argue against such strategies in these instances).
Moreover, the insistence on the role of the State as the primary organizer of economic and social life may be in fact a consequence of a specific bourgeoisie ideology which is most clearly exhibited in Hegel's apotheosis of the nation-state.

In somewhat vague notions, I think that the left will necessarily have to overcome the nation-state paradigm since the result of the paradigm is what had happend in the USSR and its satellite countries (mind you, this is the result of the paradigm and NOT of socialism as such).

No, it comes straight from the Communist Manifesto, written by Karl Marx of course.


Oh yes, the famous passage in the Manifest.
Well, I have a problem with approaches that mythify Marx's predictions and statements regarding the direct action which could take place. The mythification tends to ignore the fact that Marx's "guidelines" are inexorably linked to the existing conditions in the 19th century. Things have changed, although we still live in the dictatorship of capital.

[Wobblie]

So lets say workers achieve enough reform to where you have social democracy like Sweden, then would that set up the ground for workers to take over the means of production? Would revolution be favorable there for the workers? Would taking over the means of production (i.e. workers taking over private business and keeping them private) but maintaining the social democratic reforms (free health care, education, etc.), would that in essence be a Socialist country?

I think you have to remember that every socialist/communist/anarchist has a different view of what a "socialist country" would look like, but here is my perspective on this question. If the workers in America, for instance, joined up en masse to fight for social reforms eventually what you will have is a large mass of workers who understand that the only way to get what they want is to stand up and demand it. Through the struggle for social reforms workers come to understand that their bosses interests and their interests are diametrically opposed. They will understand that the state is nothing but the executive for the capitalist class, and that we must fundamentally change the system if we will have real change. The success or failure of the push for social reform is not as important as the radicalization of the workers. Also, you can not legislate socialism. There is no way to reform capitalism till it's socialism. That would be assuming that the working class already has control over the government, but to get control over the government (under current conditions) we must already have the means of production. As long as the capitalist class owns the means of production they will have control over the government, because they have all the wealth and the means to produce more wealth. In order for capitalism to be destroyed the workers must become aware of the situation we live in, through the struggle for social reform (in the work place or in the government), and ultimately crush the state and capitalism through a general strike that will paralyze the government and industry. The workers can then set take control over the means of production, and use workers councils to democratically plan the economy as well as to use as the government of the workers. The means of production can not be kept private, they must be socialized. They will be run by the workers, but the community as a whole will plan the economy.

[Wobblie]

Oh yes, the famous passage in the Manifest.
Well, I have a problem with approaches that mythify Marx's predictions and statements regarding the direct action which could take place. The mythification tends to ignore the fact that Marx's "guidelines" are inexorably linked to the existing conditions in the 19th century. Things have changed, although we still live in the dictatorship of capital.

I agree. Marx was writing for a specific set of conditions at a certain time. Mark and Engels made it clear that the results of the workers' struggle could take many different forms, and Marx was not dogmatic in the sense that he was prescribing these demands as a panacea to workers everywhere.