Leninists approach to getting past the transition phase?

[StoneFrog]

How do they look to go beyond the "socialist" phase and into Communism? I hear many theories on organization for the revolution and during the transition phase but, i don't know much beyond that. What measures are taken to help prompt the transition?

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Communism can only be achieved through revolution where the proletariat abolishes class inequality and democratizes production.

Not enough people understand (or are even aware of) the capitalist system and all of its implications for communism to get established immediately. The task of revolutionaries is to build the consciousness of the proletariat as a self-aware social entity that is capable of creating such a social system.

As far as transitional workers' states, I believe such states are one measure that can help get us to communism faster as long as they remain workers' states (and don't degenerate into some Bonapartist shit.)

To be honest though, I don't think distinguishing between socialism and communism is very useful.

[StoneFrog]

Communism can only be achieved through revolution where the proletariat abolishes class inequality and democratizes production.

Not enough people understand (or are even aware of) the capitalist system and all of its implications for communism to get established. The task of revolutionaries is to build the consciousness of the proletariat as a self-aware social entity that is capable of creating such a social system.

As far as transitional workers' states, I believe such states are one measure that can help get us to communism faster as long as they remain workers' states (and don't degenerate into some Bonapartist shit.)

I mean going from worker states to communism.

[Adi Shankara]

Lenin thought the only way communism could be achieved was by ridding society (through the vanguard party) of what he called the "Social ills", that is, Capitalism, religion, and nationalism. read State & Revolution, chapter 5, for his ideas on transformation from socialism to communism:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm

he thought upon wider institution of class consciousness, the state would wither away, creating full internationalism:


Lastly, only communism makes the state absolutely unnecessary, for there is nobody to be suppressed--“nobody” in the sense of a class, of a systematic struggle against a definite section of the population. We are not utopians, and do not in the least deny the possibility and inevitability of excesses on the part of individual persons, or the need to stop such excesses. In the first place, however, no special machine, no special apparatus of suppression, is needed for this: this will be done by the armed people themselves, as simply and as readily as any crowd of civilized people, even in modern society, interferes to put a stop to a scuffle or to prevent a woman from being assaulted. And, secondly, we know that the fundamental social cause of excesses, which consist in the violation of the rules of social intercourse, is the exploitation of the people, their want and their poverty. With the removal of this chief cause, excesses will inevitably begin to "wither away". We do not know how quickly and in what succession, but we do know they will wither away. With their withering away the state will also wither away.

[ContrarianLemming]

How do they look to go beyond the "socialist" phase and into Communism? I hear many theories on organization for the revolution and during the transition phase but, i don't know much beyond that. What measures are taken to help prompt the transition?

The state "withers away" after the transition is over.

Yes it's unbelievably vague, but Leninist revolutions have never gotten that far so..we'll see!

[StoneFrog]

Does anyone beyond Lenin go into anything about this?
And yes its very vague...

[Adi Shankara]

Does anyone beyond Lenin go into anything about this?
And yes its very vague...

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm

all right here, my friend :)

[StoneFrog]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm

all right here, my friend :)

*Sigh*




Does anyone beyond Lenin go into anything about this?
And yes its very vague...

[ComradeOm]

And yes its very vague...Marx and Engels, whom Lenin was merely quoting here, were equally resistant to making long-term speculative predictions. They understood the mechanics of the state, ie its underlying class foundation, and made the logical conclusion that when society's dynamics had changed, and class struggle had ceased to exist, then the state's role would be obsolete. Hence the "withering away"

So sorry to disappoint you but there is no grand Marxist master-plan ('Leninist' or otherwise) for the abolition of the state with dates and times pencilled in in advance

[Zanthorus]

So sorry to disappoint you but there is no grand Marxist master-plan ('Leninist' or otherwise) for the abolition of the state with dates and times pencilled in in advance

Not in so many words no, however the "whithering away" formula is obscure rendering of Marx's position on the state. From Marx's general outlines it would follow that the State does not merely "whither away" but destroys it's own basis, since it's based on the elevation of the working class to the position of ruling class, and the political rule of the producers is incompatible with their social slavery.

[Adil3tr]

you can't perfectly plan an ultra democratc revolution. I would think however, as the productivity increases, we will enter the post scarcity phase. Then cooercion will be largely unnessasary and dropped for a looser association of workers soviets. Voila, communism.

[mountainfire]

It's useful to begin by thinking about why "Leninists" believe that you can't have an immediate transition from a capitalist society to a communist society, based around the principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", and why there is instead a historical period separating communism and capitalism. Marx outlined why he thought this would be the case in his Critique of the Gotha Program, where he identifies that a post-revolutionary society is one that has "emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society", and that, in this context, the psychological and cultural remnants of capitalism must be accounted for by rewarding producers according to how much work they do, despite differences in individual capacity and needs, until those remnants have been weakened, at which point the transition to communist principles of distribution becomes possible.

Lenin and the Bolsheviks were aware of this important point, and they were also conscious that the revolution they had carried out was based in a country where the proletariat comprised a numerical minority, due to Russia's relative underdevelopment, and that, until the revolution spread, it would be necessary to assert the interests of the proletariat over other classes such as the peasantry, ultimately through violence, as represented by the policy of War Communism, which quite obviously signified a break from communist distributive principles. In accepting War Communism and other policies as temporary necessities, Lenin and the Bolsheviks were demonstrating the view - rooted in Marx's theory of history - that communism depends on a highly developed productive apparatus, and that, until such an apparatus becomes accessible, the most important thing is for the working class to hold onto power where capitalism has been toppled.

[StoneFrog]

I wasn't looking for there to be a master plan and date and time for the state to be abolished. What i am addressing is that if you say the state is needed in which to transfer from capitalism to communism, shouldn't there be an analysis of the state in which to prevent the need of two revolutions; one to get away from capitalism and then the other to get away from the state. The only way i can see a state being any sort of use is as an aid to produce better local community structure, not all communities will be at the point which they can take control of their own organization of distribution of goods.

We have seen so called socialist countries rise and fall, but with out much sign of withering away of the state. We have the historical view point of of seeing failed states and yet those who still claim this is the best route haven't given a clear analysis of the state. There will be no "Best" solution but each have to look critically onto their own theories, for there will always be ways to manipulate it to do a will which is was not intended. The state could do as much against the worker as it could for them, but with a failure to see that the state needs a direct action in which to make itself less needed it leaves the door wide open for corruption of the state.

[ComradeOm]

What i am addressing is that if you say the state is needed in which to transfer from capitalism to communism, shouldn't there be an analysis of the state in which to prevent the need of two revolutions; one to get away from capitalism and then the other to get away from the stateNo. Whatever their opinion of the dictatorship of the proletariat, all Marxists recognise that the state - its existence and its demise - is the product of class divisions and interests. It is not some independent body floating over the rest of society. Insofar as we oppose the bourgeois state it is because it is a tool of the bourgeoisie, not because it is a hierarchical construct. Similarly, revolutions are waged with a view to deposing the ruling class, not "to get away from the state"

When the class conditions for the continued existence of the state are no longer in place, then the state will 'wither away'. Not before


We have seen so called socialist countries rise and fall, but with out much sign of withering away of the stateThen clearly those "so called socialist countries" were not socialist at all. Obviously


The state could do as much against the worker as it could for them, but with a failure to see that the state needs a direct action in which to make itself less needed it leaves the door wide open for corruption of the state.Some anarchists would agree with you. I am not an anarchist however and I see nothing to fear from state "corruption". Power doesn't corrupt a revolution, changing material conditions do

[StoneFrog]

If we look at the left there is a big chunk in which denounces the use of a state in which to go form capitalism to Communism. Yet There is still no acknowledgment of the need of an implementation to prevent the state becoming the means to itself, and not the means to advance society which is its intentions. Why just dismiss peoples concerns with the state and not produce a contingency plan to help prevent issues of the state. If we say that all we got to do is produce a socialist state and wish for the rest, we are giving rise of a great chance of failure of the state to “wither away”. If people still claim that the state is the only means to transfer from capitalism to communism, there should at least be an attempt to produce a political solution in which the state can make sure that it is able to wither away. There is no guarantee that the state wont produce a new class, which many claim has happened in the past; this is such a thing that needs to be addressed.

I feel if a socialist state without a plan to reduce its control within communities, it will just feed onto itself until the time which the people rise again as it did against the capitalists. If my interpretation of the socialist state is correct its purpose is fundamentally a holding state, to prevent capitalism from reintroducing itself and the ability to move society into the higher phase communism. I have heard much of people stating that the socialist phase is required to defend against the capitalists, but shouldn't there be as much focus on removing the states control on individual communities? I don’t see how the state is capable of dismantling itself so shouldn't the power be given to community organizations so when the time is right for them to dismantle the state centralization?

When I talk about community organization, I don’t mean organizations directly under control of the state structure but organization that have a high degree of autonomy. The state should be very much concerned to help develop these Community structures, so that the state's hand in day to day production and distribution is limited.

Also tying back to my original post, what has been done in “socialist states” of history and present states to encourage withering away?

[ComradeOm]

If we look at the left there is a big chunk in which denounces the use of a state in which to go form capitalism to CommunismAnd I should care because...? I've already made clear that my conception of the state is very different


If people still claim that the state is the only means to transfer from capitalism to communism, there should at least be an attempt to produce a political solution in which the state can make sure that it is able to wither awayNo. There are no need for specific measures because a) its complete folly to discuss specific political structures at this pre-revolutionary stage and b) the only key consideration is the strength of the revolutionary proletariat. Once that is maintained then the state is not problem


The state should be very much concerned to help develop these Community structures, so that the state's hand in day to day production and distribution is limitedAnd these "community structures" are not part of the state? Again, the latter is the entire apparatus used by the ruling class to manage its affairs. I do not share the conception of an over-bearing central state imposing its will on more localised non-state "community structures"


Also tying back to my original post, what has been done in “socialist states” of history and present states to encourage withering away?If you don't believe that they were socialist then why do you ask the question?