What can we learn from the purportedly "socialist" states of the past? [Archive]

Delegado J

5th February 2010, 13:50

We could learn:

a) That putting the means of productions soley in the hands of the state does not equal freedom and only sets the stage for state-capitalism to arise.

b) If there is a socialist "state", we cannot allow it to become disconnected from the people. The system must be bottom-up and not top down like they have been in the past.

c) Workers' direct control and direct democracy can work if the socialist consciousness has been spread wide enough and the population actually wants to take part in their community's decision making process.

d) Rules, regulations, law, etc. must be passed by majority vote on behalf of the whole community. This ensures that these measures are within the popular will of the people and does not attempt to backhand them behind the curtains.

Just to name a few...

5th February 2010, 14:37

We could learn:

a) That putting the means of productions soley in the hands of the state does not equal freedom and only sets the stage for state-capitalism to arise.

There is nothing wrong with state ownership of capital, the state (with it's knowledge of Marxism) is there to set up and help in it's infancy an economy not based private ownership and trade of capital and keep workplaces running democratically alongside workers until the point where the state is not needed and workplaces can be owned and run collectively.

b) If there is a socialist "state", we cannot allow it to become disconnected from the people. The system must be bottom-up and not top down like they have been in the past.

I say no professional politicians but rather representitive workers. So pretty much agreed.

c) Workers' direct control and direct democracy can work if the socialist consciousness has been spread wide enough and the population actually wants to take part in their community's decision making process.

Well then the vanguard's got alot of work to do.

d) Rules, regulations, law, etc. must be passed by majority vote on behalf of the whole community. This ensures that these measures are within the popular will of the people and does not attempt to backhand them behind the curtains.

Just to name a few...

Agreed.

HASTALAVICTORIASIEMPRE

5th February 2010, 14:43

5th February 2010, 22:49

Surely a socialst state is a total oxymoron, as for socialism to exist there must be a classless stateless society?

All we can learn from so called socialist states is that the state must not be allowed total economic and indsutrial control as this creates state controlled capitalism rather than any kind of socialism? :confused:

Communism is the stateless, classless, moneyless society. Socialism is the transitionary period between capitalism and communism. It is during this that classes are in the process of disappearing and the state and monetary system are becoming unneeded.

Tablo

5th February 2010, 22:59

Communism is the stateless, classless, moneyless society. Socialism is the transitionary period between capitalism and communism. It is during this that classes are in the process of disappearing and the state and monetary system are becoming unneeded.
Socialism is democratic control of the economy and the workplace by the working class. I don't buy into the whole "transitional phase" stuff.

bailey_187

5th February 2010, 23:26

We must not view Science as "bourgeois science" and "proletarian science".

There must be more discussion and debate around Marxism so it does not become some abstract dogma.

That the social basis for capitalist restoration exists. Therefore the class struggle must continue under socialism.

Delegado J

5th February 2010, 23:33

There is nothing wrong with state ownership of capital, the state (with it's knowledge of Marxism) is there to set up and help in it's infancy an economy not based private ownership and trade of capital and keep workplaces running democratically alongside workers until the point where the state is not needed and workplaces can be owned and run collectively.

I'm sorry, but I just wouldn't trust the government (of all organizations) to run the economy. Don't get me wrong, your method sounds nice, but it's inherent that the state (or certain state officials) will attempt to siphon off money for their own benefit. This is usually what happens in socialist "states".

Vladimir Innit Lenin

6th February 2010, 00:22

The greatest lesson we can learn is that no single Socialist tendency is fully correct, and is unable to govern by itself, in such a sectarian manner.

Socialism should triumph over Capitalism. That is healthy. Marxism-Leninism trouncing over other tendencies is not healthy and merely weakens the revolution, as the contradictions contained within such an anti-democratic current of Socialism (not M-L itself, but the anti-democratic nature of crushing other Socialist opposition) begin to show, ending, as history has shown, in counter-revolution and extremely sadly, the return of Capitalism.

Sadly, many comrades have not learnt these lessons and still cling to the 'glory years' of Stalin's USSR.

Kléber

6th February 2010, 00:23

We can not do what Stalin did in 1938, which was declare socialism was achieved when what really existed was (if you agree with Lenin) state capitalism.

That the social basis for capitalist restoration exists. Therefore the class struggle must continue under socialism. Not quite. The social basis for the restoration of market capitalism existed under Soviet state capitalism. When the system was renamed in 1938, a blindfold was effectively put around the proletariat's head in the fight not only to preserve state capitalism but transition to real socialism.

By renaming the Soviet economy, Stalin's clique only said they had constructed socialism, in reality they abandoned the construction of socialism.

comradshaw

6th February 2010, 00:29

6th February 2010, 00:48

Socialism is democratic control of the economy and the workplace by the working class. I don't buy into the whole "transitional phase" stuff.
In my mind, the state is there to co-operatively manage the economy democractically with the workers during it's infancy and surrender all control and ownership to workers once the state is no longer needed to help manage the economy and workplaces.

Red Commissar

6th February 2010, 07:10

I think the biggest thing to avoid is the degree of central planning from the state some of them had, particularly the Soviet Union.

I've always been interested in how Hungary handled itself, and Yugoslavia in someways, in instituting worker management of the workplace.

Qayin

7th February 2010, 08:52

We dont try this debunked intellectual elite thing anymore for starters,oh and no secret police.

Chambered Word

7th February 2010, 10:07

"The emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself."

We need to keep that in mind always.

tellyontellyon

7th February 2010, 11:14

That the Capitalist world will not like your Socialist state and will try to make it fail and/or attack you.... this in turn can make it difficult to stick to true socialism as your system is being fucked about with from the outside...
...Be Prepared!

turquino

7th February 2010, 11:25

We must not view Science as "bourgeois science" and "proletarian science". ...the class struggle must continue under socialism.
These two things are in opposition to one another. If socialism is a transitional stage to a new fully-formed set of social relations, then it comes with all the baggage of the old society. This is a way of saying that certain characteristics of the old are not immediately abolished with the expropriation of property. Class struggle under socialism entails struggle against the old ways of doing things.

If science and technology are apolitical, and where there's lots of technology there's wealth, then why not embrace all science and technology uncritically?

Modern technology is developed in universities and corporate labs for the purposes of capital accumulation, something that socialists intend to abolish. Capitalists invest in these projects because they expect they will allow them to extract more surplus from labour. Unless these scientific projects aren't consciously directed, then socialists will mimic the capitalists adoption of technology. When these supposedly apolitical tools and techniques are used for their intended function, then capitalist relations are encouraged and allowed to subvert socialism.

The theory of productive forces was a sphere of conflict between right and left during the Chinese Cultural Revolution. There were debates over what should comes first when the growth of the productive forces seemed to conflict with the promotion of egalitarianism. Guess who won in the end.

manic expression

7th February 2010, 11:48

Don't give up the ship.

Uppercut

7th February 2010, 13:55

We can learn that we must have faith in the masses, working alongside the vanguard party, ensuring that the workers' wishes are fulfilled (safe working conditions, health care benefits, access to cultural institutions, right to rest and leisure, etc.)

We could throw in a cultural revolution as well to try to diminish the degenerative elitist currents in the U.S. (intellectual elitism, chauvenism, racism, dictatorial school boards, corrupt cops that are "above the law", etc.).

Hit The North

7th February 2010, 15:06

There seems a lot of criticism about centralised planning of the economy in this thread. However, the class nature of the state (as the executor of the plan) and its relation to the direct producers is crucial. Despostism arises not from an inevitable feature of central planning but from the class nature of the state and the level of material production within its territory. Having said that, the dangers of bureaucracy (rule of the administrators) needs to be taken very seriously and subjected to firm control by proletarian democracy.

If we want to keep a centrally coordinated mass society, then the relation between the central authority and the real rulers of society needs to be carefully worked out. How can our democracy allow people to exert control over society both locally and nationally? The solutions posed by the Stalinists and Maoists were certainly not very useful. But that reflected the class nature of their states and the historical problems they had to settle.

Das war einmal

7th February 2010, 16:07

How bad a socialist state may be, its always better then the re-introduction of capitalism (see the former-USSR, Yugoslavian war, financial position of third world countries).

Uppercut

7th February 2010, 18:16

The solutions posed by the Stalinists and Maoists were certainly not very useful.

What of the cultural revolution? Mao called on the masses to overthrow corrupt beaurocrats and intellectual elitists. In their place, revolutionary committees were formed, which was a three way alliance between the red guards, honest party cadres, and the local segments of the PLA. Sounds like democracy to me.

el_chavista

7th February 2010, 19:16

FSL

7th February 2010, 20:58

What is the DOP but the workers organized as the ruling class?
Now, who could possibly own the means of production in a "state socialism"? The State replace the bourgeoisie as owners and the party's apparatchiki the CEOs as the petty bourgeoisies who have the effective control of the means of production.
The communist revolution has to continue on in the "transitional sosciety", when the state and the party wither away. So the rev pro vanguardist will have to drop his/her CP membership card and become a humble anarchist, aiding the people in directly sizing all what is to be theirs in the new society.

The state withers away, it's not overthrown. You don't need any anarchists and you don't need any communist to turn anarchist. As everyone joins the working class by replacing all forms of property by the common, social property over the means of production and as the division of labor is done away with, the workers state becomes every man's state.
It withers away because it runs out of people to repress.

robbo203

7th February 2010, 21:11

Klaatu

7th February 2010, 21:30

What can we learn from the purportedly "socialist" states of the past?

I might also add: failing "capitalist" states

(A) Mandate a college-level education for all citizens (no more "think what you're told to think")

(B) Do away with "representative democracy" (no legislators to corrupt; keep power in the hands of the people)

(C) Make it a crime to LIE (in terms of propaganda on public issues)

(D) Set publicly-agreed-upon incomes for various occupations and businesses (no more $50 million "bonuses" for CEOs)

(E) Guarantee everyone a job, and mandate that everyone work (your choice of job, of course, but no slackers allowed)

It could be argued that this is not freedom, this mandating of things. But hey, life is rough. Everyone: do your part.

8th February 2010, 09:06

A "socialist state" is a contradiction in terms. If the state is a tool of the ruling class then its very existence implies the existence of classes and therefore the absence of common ownership of the means of production which is the essence of socialism. Incidentally, if you want to "stay true to Marxism" you might bear in mind that Marx made no distinction between socialism and communism but treated these terms as synonyms.
As a transitionary period between capitalism and communism, socialism implies that there is some sort of state at the beginning and no state at the end (when it becomes communism).

robbo203

8th February 2010, 09:37

As a transitionary period between capitalism and communism, socialism implies that there is some sort of state at the beginning and no state at the end (when it becomes communism).

OK, you are using the term "socialism" in a way that was never used in traditional marxism. Like I said Marx and co used the terms socialism and communism as synonyms not as different phases in an extended process of social transformation.

However, I am not too concerned about the label itself. What is far more important is what it denotes. You say there must be a transitional period between capitalism and communism which you call socialism and which you say has a state. I say that in fact thats nonsense and that in real terms what you call "socialism" will actually be a type of capitalism. It will still be a class-based society which is precisely why there is still a state in it!

Logically speaking there cannot be such a thing as a "transition" between capitalism and communism. Think about it. What can there possibly be between a class based society and classless society. You either have one or the other.

There can be a transition within capitalism which is probably what you mean when you talk about "socialism" and you can have a transition within communism (for Marx's lower and higher phases of communism). But what you cannot possibly have is a transition between them. It makes no sense whatsoever. And yes I know Marx said there would be such a transition but he wasnt making any sense on this occasion either!

Jimmie Higgins

8th February 2010, 10:27

I'm sorry, but I just wouldn't trust the government (of all organizations) to run the economy. Don't get me wrong, your method sounds nice, but it's inherent that the state (or certain state officials) will attempt to siphon off money for their own benefit. This is usually what happens in socialist "states".While I agree with what you said in your first post, the idea that any state will produce a parasite class or that a state has its own interests not connected to any class is an abstract way to look at the role of states.

States in capitalism are more or less unaccountable to popular demands because they have been designed to be that way. In the US "checks and balances" aren't really designed to be a check on state power, but popular power. So while the supreme court looks the other way when the executive declares "illegal" wars or when the legislative branch increases the military or federal power, their unelected position can be used to "check" popular demands if the executive or legislature are pressured by the population. Another great example is the current healthcare "reform" where the executive and legislative pass the "hot potato" of a very popular demand (universal healthcare - a demand of a large chunk of the population since WWII at least) back and forth while each claim they do not have the power to push reform through. The reality is that the decisions are made behind closed doors and much of the rest is just posturing.

On the other hand, if workers organized themselves and called a general strike where there were many factory occupations, then the worker's strike committees and workplace committees would essentially become "the state". Through these organizational bodies, the workers would work out defense against police and military attempts to break the strike, how to get and distribute supplies to working class communities and the occupied factories, medical and emergency aid and so on.

8th February 2010, 11:35

OK, you are using the term "socialism" in a way that was never used in traditional marxism. Like I said Marx and co used the terms socialism and communism as synonyms not as different phases in an extended process of social transformation.

However, I am not too concerned about the label itself. What is far more important is what it denotes. You say there must be a transitional period between capitalism and communism which you call socialism and which you say has a state. I say that in fact thats nonsense and that in real terms what you call "socialism" will actually be a type of capitalism. It will still be a class-based society which is precisely why there is still a state in it!

Logically speaking there cannot be such a thing as a "transition" between capitalism and communism. Think about it. What can there possibly be between a class based society and classless society. You either have one or the other.

There can be a transition within capitalism which is probably what you mean when you talk about "socialism" and you can have a transition within communism (for Marx's lower and higher phases of communism). But what you cannot possibly have is a transition between them. It makes no sense whatsoever. And yes I know Marx said there would be such a transition but he wasnt making any sense on this occasion either!
Then how can the state wither away? It implies that a state still exists for a little while.

robbo203

8th February 2010, 11:49

Then how can the state wither away? It implies that a state still exists for a little while.

I dont see the state as "withering away". This is a nonsensical notion, in my view, on a par with the idea that there is something in between a class-based and a classless society. The state disappears on the attainment of communism. Its as simple as that.

What you can conceivably say is that in the twiligt period of capitalism, the state will find itself increasing constrained by public opinion (in turn increasingly influenced by communist ideas and values) so that in a sense you will see a weakening of the state as a tool of class oppression. You might want to call this the withering away of the state but it is something that happens before the establishment of communism and not afterwards. Once communism is established there are no classes and therefore there is no state.

Its as ridiculous to talk about the withering away of the state as it is to talk about the withering away of classes. And it also actually undermines the whole point of having a communist revolution

Uppercut

8th February 2010, 22:19

I dont see the state as "withering away". This is a nonsensical notion, in my view, on a par with the idea that there is something in between a class-based and a classless society. The state disappears on the attainment of communism. Its as simple as that.

What you can conceivably say is that in the twiligt period of capitalism, the state will find itself increasing constrained by public opinion (in turn increasingly influenced by communist ideas and values) so that in a sense you will see a weakening of the state as a tool of class oppression. You might want to call this the withering away of the state but it is something that happens before the establishment of communism and not afterwards. Once communism is established there are no classes and therefore there is no state.

Its as ridiculous to talk about the withering away of the state as it is to talk about the withering away of classes. And it also actually undermines the whole point of having a communist revolution

Ok then, can you tell us how to move from a capitalist cesspool to a perfectly self-managed society? If we can't have a transition stage, how would you, yourself go about creating a classless, stateless society?

I have faith in the people that they can organize intelligently and establish a system that truly works for the whole of society, but we can't rely on spontaneity to bring the workers to power.

gorillafuck

8th February 2010, 22:33

I've always been interested in how Hungary handled itself, and Yugoslavia in someways, in instituting worker management of the workplace.
How did Hungary handle itself?

What of the cultural revolution? Mao called on the masses to overthrow corrupt beaurocrats and intellectual elitists.
"Overthrowing" intellectuals doesn't sound like a good idea to me. At all. Why would you want to rid society of intellectuals?

southernmissfan

8th February 2010, 22:45

I think we have learned that material conditions are the most important aspect of whether a revolution is successful, or for that matter, "socialist". Kinda hard to have proletarian revolutions in backwards, underdeveloped countries with large populations of peasantry.

Uppercut

8th February 2010, 22:50

"Overthrowing" intellectuals doesn't sound like a good idea to me. At all. Why would you want to rid society of intellectuals?

I'm not saying overthrow all intellectuals, but the struggle was waged against those that have that elitist mindset and attitude, much like that of our professional politicians.

It was up to the people to determine who had "bourgeois" attitude, who was to stay and benefit the communal students, and those who simply slacked off, had that "I'm better than you" mindset, and contributed next to nothing. Also, many of these bourgeois-minded people were not killed, but rather publicly criticized. The Red Guards preferred that people changed their ways, instead of just having them killed.

robbo203

8th February 2010, 22:52

Ok then, can you tell us how to move from a capitalist cesspool to a perfectly self-managed society? If we can't have a transition stage, how would you, yourself go about creating a classless, stateless society?

I have faith in the people that they can organize intelligently and establish a system that truly works for the whole of society, but we can't rely on spontaneity to bring the workers to power.

Like I said, the focus is all wrong. Instead of looking at the transition period as something happens after the revolution (and I have explained why logically there cannot be such a thing as a "transition" between capitalism and communism), focus instead on what happens before the revolution.

Equally importantly focus on what actually is meant by a revolution. See, much of the problem stems from a poor understanding of what the term revolution means. Actually revolution simply means a fundamental change in the economic basis of society. The political goings-on leading up to this are not what the revolution is about - necessary though they may be. People sometimes think of revolutiuon as meaning violent armed struggle. This is not what is meant by revolution in marxian terms. It is confusing the means by which a revolution is effected with its goal or purpose (though personally, of course I reject completely the armed struggle, a peaceful revolution would self evidently be far preferable and more likely to succeed than one that was accomplished violently)

You say "I have faith in the people that they can organize intelligently and establish a system that truly works for the whole of society, but we can't rely on spontaneity to bring the workers to power". Well I agree but who said anything about relying on spontaneity only. You also need organisation but why do you think it is out of the question to organise in the way you desire before the revolutiuonary overthrow of capitalism itself? Why is it so diffucult to imagine that the transition period in which we begin to adjust ourselves to the real possibility of communism is something that can happen now while we still live in a capitalist society?

Robocommie

8th February 2010, 23:40

Socialism is democratic control of the economy and the workplace by the working class. I don't buy into the whole "transitional phase" stuff.

Personally I believe that if such a thing as a transition to Communism is possible, it will not be seen for a long time after socialism, as it's taken hundreds of years since the transition from feudalism to capitalism and socialism is only now showing a sign of rising in it's place. If we see true socialism as the dominant mode in our own lifetimes, it's still unlikely that our children will see communism in theirs, or our grandchildren, even.

What this means to me is that I want to fight first and foremost for a democratic ownership of the workplace BY the workers, and clean up the idiotic mess that capitalists and oligarchs have made of the world's nations, before arguing about the this and thats of Communism.

Uppercut

8th February 2010, 23:47

who said anything about relying on spontaneity only.

Anarchist movements in the past have relied on total spontaneity, that the entire population of a country will one day take to the streets. It's wonderfully idealistic, but I find it hard to believe that the anarchist consciousness will spread wide enough so that every person of every region will rebel at the exact same time needed for a successful anarchist revolution.

why do you think it is out of the question to organise in the way you desire before the revolutiuonary overthrow of capitalism itself?

I don't think that. It's essential to organize prior to revolution, but in the past, anarchists have had a difficult time doing this, mainly because there isn't a central group or guerilla army that the masses can gather around and take part in.

Why is it so diffucult to imagine that the transition period in which we begin to adjust ourselves to the real possibility of communism is something that can happen now while we still live in a capitalist society?

Mainly because we are not in a transition phase heading towards communism. At the present, I believe we are experiencing the last phase of the capitalist state, but we are not currently in the socialist state.

If we were, we would see that the masses are becoming more armed and more knowledgeable than before, along with a massive overhaul of the educational system.
In a socialist society, I can envision schools openly training the students on essential life skills (how to perform basic medical tasks, such as CPR, how to repair household utilities and vehicles, leading to a decrease in the need for specialization, and how to perform correct self-defense). The goal of a true socialist state is to prepare the people for its own demise.
The people still don't know how to take care of themselves in the manner that is needed for a self-managed society.

Red Commissar

9th February 2010, 00:52

How did Hungary handle itself?

There's a lot of things written about it- the so-called "Goulash Communism" doctrine. It wasn't orthodox communism nor soviet-style central-planning, but a different thing all together probably more inline with a mixed economy that allowed for workers to take some control of their workplace, rather than a central bureaucracy controlling everything. It didn't deviate enough to get invaded again by the soviet union however. Google or wiki it for more info.

Yugoslavia had a greater tendency towards a form of worker's management, and this was able to be done since Yugoslavia was outside of the Soviet sphere and could handle itself as it wished. From what I've read it seemed Yugoslavia did not have this state bureaucracy controlling everything and rather granted more worker control. It fared reasonably for a country of its kind during Tito's time and it was only after his death things fell apart.

However as we know, both of them went through problems in the 1980s which was part of a broader economic crunch much of the communist and socialist states went through, and their regimes collapsed.

What the two had in common was that they were more "open" so to speak. Their people generally had a higher HDI, educational establishments, arts, etc. And their borders were not closed, so people could come and go as they pleased for the most part.

Robocommie

9th February 2010, 01:16

Klaatu

9th February 2010, 04:30

"Overthrowing" intellectuals doesn't sound like a good idea to me. At all. Why would you want to rid society of intellectuals?

Did Stalin "overthrow" all intellectuals, or just those opposed to him?

9th February 2010, 09:12

I seem to be lost on just what socialism is and if the state is necessary or not. So could some communists (not Anarchists) tell me what they think it is.

sanpal

9th February 2010, 12:48

I seem to be lost on just what socialism is and if the state is necessary or not. So could some communists (not Anarchists) tell me what they think it is.

I again suggest not to use the term "socialism" for definition classless stateless moneyless society aka "communism". Everyone could see how application of this term bring in confusion in theoretical discussion. Our time is wasting without any useful solutions by such manner of discussion. "Socialism" is All what lay between capitalism as a bourgeois society and communism as a stateless classless society.

To robbo203: comrade robbo203, I understand that you as anarchist reject transition period (DotP) at all, but pls don't bereave of other comrades the term "socialism" for their possibility to give the definite term to the transition period. Especially since communism and socialism are similarity in your opinion (though I'm not agreed with your statement, maybe it's time to re-name "Communist manifesto" into "Socialist manifesto"??). Don't be greedy - let's leave one of two terms (i.e. "socialism") to other comrades ;)

el_chavista

9th February 2010, 15:49

The state withers away, it's not overthrown. You don't need any anarchists and you don't need any communist to turn anarchist. As everyone joins the working class by replacing all forms of property by the common, social property over the means of production and as the division of labor is done away with, the workers state becomes every man's state.
It withers away because it runs out of people to repress.
I think of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat as an Anarchist Revolution -the workers directly sizing their factories with the help of the communists.

Uppercut

9th February 2010, 16:03

Yugoslavia was a good socialist experiment, with a socialist market. However, I don't see how a bunch of competing cooperatives could lead to communism. It can create a labor aristocracy, where a small group of workers in a particular workplace lay off other workers and replace them with technology with their own benefit. I'm not saying the system can't work, but it's iffy in the longrun, especially considering the level of trade Yugoslavia had with the West, which lead to deep national debt.

In my opinion, a country needs to become an autarky in order to ever usher in communism. Employment must be filled for all members of that country, and there must be a sufficient amount of products produced in that country for their own use. Trade will have to be minimized or outright abolished as it becomes unnecessary. Of course, a hefty trade surplus wouldn't be a bad thing either.

Robocommie

9th February 2010, 22:49

However, I don't see how a bunch of competing cooperatives could lead to communism. It can create a labor aristocracy, where a small group of workers in a particular workplace lay off other workers and replace them with technology with their own benefit.

With the right laws on the books, I think we can ban lay-offs in general. If workers are fired from a job it should be because they're not pulling their own weight and they won't clean up their act, or because bad decisions on their part threatens the safety or health of their co-workers, things of that nature. Workers shouldn't be able to shut out other workers like that without a damn good reason.

And while I'm opposed to centralized distribution, I do think central planning is good and any employment shortfalls could be covered by building a new workplace. This is a failing of the capitalist system today. Both Republicans and Democrats want more jobs, but their hands are tied because they won't build businesses, they'll only offer tax cuts or "stimulus packages." How the hell is that supposed to bring jobs to the slums?

Klaatu

9th February 2010, 23:11

Both Republicans and Democrats want more jobs, but their hands are tied because they won't build businesses, they'll only offer tax cuts or "stimulus packages." How the hell is that supposed to bring jobs to the slums?

These "tax cuts for the wealthy" help stimulate jobs, all right: overseas jobs.

The rich man invests where he can get the cheapest labor. But why didn't Bush,
et al, think of this before they ruined our economy with this silly plan?

Maybe they did think of it - but no one else did - until we lost our own jobs :blink:

Robocommie

10th February 2010, 04:53

These "tax cuts for the wealthy" help stimulate jobs, all right: overseas jobs.

The rich man invests where he can get the cheapest labor. But why didn't Bush,
et al, think of this before they ruined our economy with this silly plan?

Maybe they did think of it - but no one else did - until we lost our own jobs :blink:

I truly don't understand this apparent disconnect with reality that Republicans seem to have with Reaganomics. It's like they don't read newspapers to see how our industrial base is dying, and they're helping to shoo it out the door.

Heh, I see you live in Detroit though. Pretty good place to see this in action, eh?

robbo203

10th February 2010, 11:35

I again suggest not to use the term "socialism" for definition classless stateless moneyless society aka "communism". Everyone could see how application of this term bring in confusion in theoretical discussion. Our time is wasting without any useful solutions by such manner of discussion. "Socialism" is All what lay between capitalism as a bourgeois society and communism as a stateless classless society.

To robbo203: comrade robbo203, I understand that you as anarchist reject transition period (DotP) at all, but pls don't bereave of other comrades the term "socialism" for their possibility to give the definite term to the transition period. Especially since communism and socialism are similarity in your opinion (though I'm not agreed with your statement, maybe it's time to re-name "Communist manifesto" into "Socialist manifesto"??). Don't be greedy - let's leave one of two terms (i.e. "socialism") to other comrades ;)

Sanpal

It is not the precise label that I am worried -although it is factually incorrect to suggest that socialism and communism meant different phases in a process of social transformation for people like Marx and Engels. This was Lenin's idea, not Marx's

What concerns me much more is the theory behind the labels. The concept of a transition between capitalism and communism is fundamentally incoherent and illogical and I defy anyone to explain how there can possibly be something in between a class based society and a classless society. It is one or the other. So you can only have a transition within capitalism or a transition within communism but not a transntion between them

sanpal

10th February 2010, 21:43

Sanpal

It is not the precise label that I am worried -although it is factually incorrect to suggest that socialism and communism meant different phases in a process of social transformation for people like Marx and Engels. This was Lenin's idea, not Marx's

Dear comrade, read Lenin's "State and Revolution". Just carefully! If to read carefully then you could see that Lenin wrote thus: socialism is the first phase of communism. If to ratiocinate according Lenin's thought then socialism and communism of the first phase are the same thing while socialism and communism of the second phase are not the same thing. I do not agree with Lenin because he confuses this question. And you, dear comrade, don't make clear this question as well but confuse it even in more degrees.
Just a suggestion : try to replace the word "socialism" in all your stuff into the word "communism" and you would make sure that the essence of your stuff has no change because the position that communism and socialism are convertible terms was fixed primordial. But after this procedure another readers will see clearly that you intend to jump from capitalism into communism by one stroke what expose you to risk to get next label "Idealist - Utopist".

Klaatu

10th February 2010, 23:19

I truly don't understand this apparent disconnect with reality that Republicans seem to have with Reaganomics. It's like they don't read newspapers to see how our industrial base is dying, and they're helping to shoo it out the door.

Heh, I see you live in Detroit though. Pretty good place to see this in action, eh?

See, this is all based on faith. But having faith in a bad idea does not improve anything, no matter
how strongly they believe in it.

Cut taxes on the rich (the poor got about a $5 tax cut) and the country will prosper and all of that?
The truth is that if we do a little research, we find that Reagan had to re-raise those taxes in order
to keep deficit spending under control (A) the neocons will never tell you that, and (B) those "new
taxes" were NOT on the rich, and (C) Tax cuts have NEVER stimulated economic growth here.

Bush I did the same thing (reneging on his "Read-my-lips-no-new-taxes" campaign pledge.)
Bush II just cut the taxes and started two wars (and now Obama is at fault for the mess?)

I fail to understand how tax cuts "help" American workers. They do help American investment
in overseas factories, and they do help Richie Rich's ability to afford to purchase an $80 million
original Van Gogh.

Yes I have seen the worst of it here in Detroit. In some areas of the suburbs, it seems that
every 10th house is foreclosed and vacant (much worse than that within the city itself)

11th February 2010, 10:04

What do others think the definition of the state is? I accept the definition as the "entity with the monopoly on the legitimate use of force". Keeping with this definition and the idea that there would be no centralized authority under socialism, would state-like instutions such as border control or a standing army be needed to protect people from possible outside espionage, infiltration or invasion?

robbo203

11th February 2010, 17:08

Dear comrade, read Lenin's "State and Revolution". Just carefully! If to read carefully then you could see that Lenin wrote thus: socialism is the first phase of communism. If to ratiocinate according Lenin's thought then socialism and communism of the first phase are the same thing while socialism and communism of the second phase are not the same thing. I do not agree with Lenin because he confuses this question. And you, dear comrade, don't make clear this question as well but confuse it even in more degrees.
Just a suggestion : try to replace the word "socialism" in all your stuff into the word "communism" and you would make sure that the essence of your stuff has no change because the position that communism and socialism are convertible terms was fixed primordial. But after this procedure another readers will see clearly that you intend to jump from capitalism into communism by one stroke what expose you to risk to get next label "Idealist - Utopist".

Sanpal. To repeat, its not the label that matters, its the theretical model that Im interested in.

I know Lenin differentiated between socialism and communism. I know also that in so doing he departed from the traditional marxian usage which treated these words as interchangeable synonyms. Thats an interesting discussion but not vital.

What is vital is the concept of a transition between capitalism and communism. Ive maintained that this is an illogical and incoherent concept and needs to be scrapped irrespective of what label you attach to it.

This is what I would be more interested in discussing frankly

sanpal

12th February 2010, 20:19

Sanpal. To repeat, its not the label that matters, its the theretical model that Im interested in.

I know Lenin differentiated between socialism and communism. I know also that in so doing he departed from the traditional marxian usage which treated these words as interchangeable synonyms. Thats an interesting discussion but not vital.

What is vital is the concept of a transition between capitalism and communism. Ive maintained that this is an illogical and incoherent concept and needs to be scrapped irrespective of what label you attach to it.

This is what I would be more interested in discussing frankly

Label itself is rubbish, the theoretical model goes first. If a model contradicts directly marxism it causes proper appraisal. Well, the forum "learning" and this theme is not suitable place for elucidation of theoretic disagreements. There is another forum for discussion on theory.

Dimentio

12th February 2010, 20:59

What could be learnt is - one, two and three - that vanguard parties should not administrate socialist societies. Almost every other problem could be amended or survived through, but the idea to leave the political and economic power in society in the hands of a narrow group of de-facto philosopher kings is inviting to abuse and disintegration. That despite if they call themselves marxist-leninist, marxist-leninist or marxist-leninist-maoist.

The idea of state ownership is also bizarre. A system which wants to abolish the state should not serve to enstrengthen the institutions of the state. Especially not when the state isn't serving the people, but a small group which is claiming to act on behalf of the people.

Accountability is another problem. That socialist states have failed to install or even keep the progressive tenets of bourgeois revolutions has turned them into either autocracies or oligarchies with no accountability. These tenets which I'm referring to are constitutionalism, separation of powers and a governance of laws.

Call me boring, but I think that such things need to be established.

12th February 2010, 21:30

Dimentio

12th February 2010, 21:35

You said marxist-leninist twice...

But on a more serious note, I think you can read my mind or something because that's just exactly what I was thinking and about to say.

Yes, I said it twice, since both anti-revisionists* and trotskyists are calling themselves marxist-leninist.

*=Stalinists.

Agnapostate

13th February 2010, 00:05

I seem to be lost on just what socialism is and if the state is necessary or not. So could some communists (not Anarchists) tell me what they think it is.

Being the person who wrote the undisputed and still-standing Wikipedia definition, "socialism" is the public ownership and management of the means of production. While I don't regard the existence of a state as being necessary for this to occur, I deviate from most anarchists in asserting that its existence is not necessarily an impediment.

robbo203

13th February 2010, 01:32

Label itself is rubbish, the theoretical model goes first. If a model contradicts directly marxism it causes proper appraisal. Well, the forum "learning" and this theme is not suitable place for elucidation of theoretic disagreements. There is another forum for discussion on theory.

My main point is that there is nothing in between a class based and a classless society. This stands to reason.

How this relates to marxism is a tricky one. Marx talked of the DOTP between capitalism and communism. Of course by definition the DOTP is still a class based construction, its is still actually technically capitalism since the proletariat is a class category relating to capitalism, Marx did not the DOTP a distinct social formation or kind of society, merely a "political transition". Nevertheless , I think the whole idea was a huge blunder on the part of Marx. It is was a theoretically incoherent concept from start to finish.

There are some aspects of Marxism which, I accept, Leninism is grounded in - in particular the idea that state capitalism somehow facilitates the socialist takeover of soceity. For myself, I totally disagree with this suggestion that state capitalism aids socialism in some way but that is a separate argument.

Where Marxism sharply differs from leninism however is that there is none of this nonsense about socialism being equated with "state capitalist monopoly made to serve the whole people". In Marxism there is clear division between capitalism and socialism which in Leninism is blurred. In fact if you read Lenin carefully you can see what a confused and contradictory writer he actually is

For example in april 1918 we find him admitting that, neither capitalism nor the capitalist class had disappeared and that "we can have no Socialism" until the "problem of creating conditions under which the bourgeoisie could neither exist nor come anew into existence had been solved" ("The Soviets at Work" Fifth Edition, Published on April 28, 1918 in Pravda). One month later, in tract entitled "Left-Wing" Childishness and the Petty-Bourgeois Mentality" aimed at his Left Commmunist critics, we find him listing the " elements actually constitute the various socio-economic structures that exist in Russia at the present time". These were " 1) patriarchal, i.e., to a considerable extent natural, peasant farming; 2) small commodity production (this includes the majority of those peasants who sell their grain); 3) private capitalism; 4) state capitalism; 5) socialism". This of course directly contradicted his earlier claim that there can be "no socialism" while the conditions remained that allowed the bourgeoisie to still exist

Lenin's works contain numerous contradictions of this nature and it doesnt help that some his formations such as "taking steps towards socialism" or "building socialism" are so vague as to be meaningless

sanpal

19th February 2010, 10:16

What can a future socialist state learn from the purportedly "socialist" states of the past? I'm thinking what can we do to stay true to Marxism and not make the same mistakes that the purportedly socialist states of the past made (such as authoritarianism, bureaucracy, cults of personality, market reforms, etc.).

To stay true to Marxism we should interpret the scientific marxism correctly i.e. not subjectively. What I mean by that for example, the laws of physics, thermodynamics, etc. work in every places (in the US, Russia, Spain, etc.) similarly i.e. objectively, independently from humans' consciousness so there is no problem to fix definite terms for them and interpret scientific concepts equally . Marxism is recognised by marxists as a science and its laws work in different nations (in the US, Russia, Spain, etc.) similarly i.e. objectively as well. Thus if to construct a theoretic model of future socialist society non according scientific marxism or incorrectly to interpret marxism then practical realisation of such theoretic model will be doomed to fail. The common name of such unworking model is "utopian socialism". Marx, Engels made every effort for critique of utopian socialism of different authors to prevent future revolutionaries from possible mistakes. Theirs main works "Kapital", "Anti-Duhring" have an aim to give the theoretic tools to the proletariat for creating workable model of the future socialist/communist society and on the example of Duhring's utopian model of socialism to show how to distinguish utopianism from science.

But in spite of theirs warning many of left theorists gladly using quotes from Marx&Engels' works consider themselves as a "great marxists" and suppose themselves in right to interpret marxism freely as they want taking from it pieces which they like and reject those pieces which they don't like. Could anybody imagine for a moment to interpret so freely the physics, chemistry, etc.? For example in structure of water H2O they like and accept Oxygen and don't like and reject Hydrogen. Absurd. Such revisionism leads to creation of different groups using only revolutionary rhetoric, kinda left sects from marxism. I see a situation like this as I could allegorically to imagine it: a big asteroid of "rev. left movement" is flying toward the Earth where it is able after clash with the planet to change the (political) weather in global scale, to change (social and economic) climate all over the Earth. What would be well for bourgeoisie to exclude this scenario? Of course to fragment this great asteroid per the numerous small pieces of stone - meteorites (in our case - on different left sects of pseudo-marxist sort ) the better far from the Earth as far as possible. It is well known that small meteorites burn down in the higher levels of the atmosphere without any harm to climate of the Earth.
The main mistake of former socialist states of the 20th century is their nonunderstanding of the importance of Marx/Engels' critique of Duhring's utopian model of socialism in the work "Anti-Duhring" what inevitably led to different abuses '... authoritarianism, bureaucracy, cults of personality, market reforms, etc ...' and to logic collapse.