The "10 Planks" of the Communist Manifesto

[The Vegan Marxist]

This video below was provided through another political forum:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nx1M9owfRt8&feature=player_embedded

Now, in response to it, given that I'm tired right now, I made it to halfway through the "10 planks" to try & help those asking about it on what exactly they mean & why the US is not embracing these planks:


lmfao! okay...wow.

This guy is such full of shit, I don't know where to begin. He's definitely a conspiracy theorist, no doubt. Probably an individualist anarchist. But let's get down to business shall we.

First, let me help those understand what the reason behind the 10 "planks" were for. This was laid out by Marx, not on how Communism should work - for in Communism, as laid out by both Marx & Engels, there is no State - but rather how, during that time period, the workers could've gone about things when they took power & formed what both Marx & Engels call the Proletarian State - meaning instead of the bourgeois (capitalists as the ruling class) running the State, the workers now run the State as the new ruling class. Though, it was stated that these "planks" could be varied within different regions, & later on in his life, he's specifically stated that the Communist Manifesto is in need of updating:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm#preface-1872

When it comes to the modern day, & how we feel Socialism should work (a Proletarian State), here's an update on what the socialist programme should variably look like, which was made by Jacob Richter:

1. 32-Hour Workweek Without Loss of Pay or Benefits
2. Class-Strugglist Assembly and Association: Self-Directional Demands
3. People’s Militias: The Full Extension of the Ability to Bear Arms
4. Local Autonomy and Alternative Local Currencies
5. Party-Recallable, Closed-List, and Pure Proportional Representation
6. Against Personal Inheritance: Ceremonial Nobility, Productive Property, and Child Poverty
7. Against Corporate Personhood and More: Corporations as Psychopaths
8. Socio-Income Democracy: Direct Democracy in Income Taxation
9. Progress, Poverty, and Economic Rent in Land
10. The Abolition of Indirect and Other Class-Regressive Taxation
11. “The Right to the City”
12. “Sliding Scale of Wages”: Cost-of-Living Adjustments and Living Wages
13. Private-Sector Collective Bargaining Representation as a Free Legal Service
14. Against Modern Enclosures of the Commons: Intellectual Property
15. Eminent Domain for Pre-Cooperative Worker Buyouts

Though, of course, this doesn't necessarily mean this is what Socialist nations, again a nation run by the Proletarian State (not the bourgeois state) should look like. Like Marx stated, each region will vary on how Socialism will operate.

Now, let's give the "10 planks" a look at first:

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.


1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

First off, what exactly is wrong with this? This is in order to prevent any capitalist corporation or business to privately own land in order to exploit workers. When made to be publicly owned, the workers are then in ability to use such lands to provide a service to the community, in which does good as a whole, rather than for the individualist corporations that only operate for themselves, rather than for other people.

Second off, here in States, I don't know what other people see, but we have something called private property, & we have shit loads of private corporations running on private property. In fact, the vast majority of the United States is filled with private property, whether for the individual or of the capitalist corporations.


2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Yes, we call for a progressive increase on taxes, but taxes in which do services for the community, rather than for the Capitalist State or to fund wars, & whatever the fuck is being funded in the United States. In fact, if we could cut off all the taxes that are not being used for the community, & then increase the taxes that are needed - such as to fund healthcare, education, energy, etc. - then people then would actually be paying for a lot less taxes than they are today. So keep that in mind.


3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

I'm gong to let good old Karl Marx take this one when it comes to explaining the problems with the rights of inheritance (read it & then realize that this is not what the idiot in the video thought we were talking about):

“The right of inheritance is only of social import insofar as it leaves to the heir the power which the deceased wielded during his lifetime -- viz., the power of transferring to himself, by means of his property, the produce of other people's labor. For instance, land gives the living proprietor the power to transfer to himself, under the name of rent, without any equivalent, the produce of other people's labor. Capital gives him the power to do the same under the name of profit and interest. The property in public funds gives him the power to live without labor upon other people's labor, etc.” ~Karl Marx (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1869/inheritance-report.htm)


4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did the guy in the video compare "emigrants" with "immigrants"? Just wondering, because if so, then he's sadly mistaken. Emigrants are people who flee the country, not ones who enter the country. And so, what we see here on this "plank" is for the State (proletarian state, not bourgeois state) to confiscate the property of those who left the country & use it for the good of the community. Do we do this here in America? Well, we do confiscate property - whether the people left or not - but we don't confiscate it for the good of the community or the workers, rather we confiscate land to produce more capitalist industries in order to exploit more workers.

When it comes to "rebels", the idiot on the video seems to loosely define the term "rebel" as anyone who rebels against anything - such as himself apparently. Well, first off, we have to put this into terms of taking place during the ruling of the Proletarian State, not the bourgeois state. Right now, the United States is run by a bunch of capitalist - hence a bourgeois state. And we've got to understand the contradiction from the capitalists, which is the workers. So the workers are the rebels of the bourgeois state. When we put into the context Marx was referring to, we're talking about the Proletarian State, where the worker run the state, & in contradiction, the rebels are the capitalist elements left after the abolition of the bourgeois state. So we're confiscating the land of capitalists & using it for the greater good of the whole community & the working class, not the exploitative minority of capitalists.


5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

I swear, every time some Libertarian retard in the United States tries explaining the Communist Manifesto, let alone the "10 planks", they always try comparing the 5th "plank" with the Federal Reserve - yet in the same sentence state clearly the Federal Reserve is a private bank, contradicting their own comparison.

Yes, we call for a State-run Central banking system. The problem with the comparison of this with the Federal Reserve is this - the Federal Reserve is not State-Run, it's privately run by a bunch of capitalists. To centralize a banking system in a country where the banks are in competition with each other is suicide & won't happen while the State of the US is run by the bourgeois - hence why Marx stated these "planks" should take place by the rule of the Proletarian State (again).

If anything, his initial mistake was this - the planks are not to describe what happens in Communism, rather what Marx outlined on what he felt workers should embrace during Socialism within the formation of the Proletarian State, not the Bourgeois State.

So if anybody can help me out on the last 5, &/or criticize what I provided for the first 5 if needed, then much would be appreciated.

[Paulappaul]

Why are we still defending the 10 planks? It's out of date and was said so by it's creators a long time ago.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Why are we still defending the 10 planks? It's out of date and was said so by it's creators a long time ago.

Because it remains as modern-day propaganda put against the Communist movement. And to better understand it, means to better debunk the propaganda put against us.

[ContrarianLemming]

It's better to ignore arguments against it since those who argue against it only reveal there own ignorance.

[Widerstand]

Because it remains as modern-day propaganda put against the Communist movement. And to better understand it, means to better debunk the propaganda put against us.

Why not just kindly point out that they are outdated and pretty much everyone agrees on that, ignore any further strawman, and move on? By defending them, instead of making sure people understand they are not our commandments or anything, you are just reinforcing the believe that they are our commandments.

[Roach]

This guy looks so ridiculuos,that he is able to debunk himself.You made a nice job anyway.:thumbup1:

[The Vegan Marxist]

Why not just kindly point out that they are outdated and pretty much everyone agrees on that, ignore any further strawman, and move on? By defending them, instead of making sure people understand they are not our commandments or anything, you are just reinforcing the believe that they are our commandments.

I just did that actually. It just gets annoying when I see these idiotic conspiracy theorists try using the Communist Manifesto to show how "America's turning into an evil commie state". lol

[Lyev]

These "10 planks" are basically irrelevant in the 21st c.; even Marx, in his own lifetime (around 1870ish), wrote that they were out-of-date. They were drawn up largely in light of the 1848-49 revolutions that swept Europe shortly before Marx and Engels sat down and wrote the thing. There is a letter or some sort of preface that should be on http://www.marxists.org/ (http://www.arxists.org)* but I wouldn't have a clue where to start looking for it.

*EDIT: the link is broken, obviously you know the website though

[Red Commissar]

On marxists.org like Lyev said there is a quote from the 1888 edition, which refers back to the preface of the 1872 German edition:


“However much that state of things may have altered during the last twenty-five years, the general principles laid down in the Manifesto are, on the whole, as correct today as ever. Here and there, some detail might be improved. The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended organization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole months, this programme has in some details been antiquated.

If they felt it was outdated by 1872, then what does that say about nowadays?

I know that won't be enough to placate people, but if they think Marxism is based on 10 outdated points solely, and that's enough to call something "Marxist", they are already approaching this incorrectly.

It's not worth debating with them if they won't budge on that regard.

[KurtFF8]

It's better to ignore arguments against it since those who argue against it only reveal there own ignorance.

Exactly, to label them the "10 Planks of Communism" is ridiculous in the first place. They were never labeled as such, but instead were 10 demands of the specific political propaganda piece known as the Communist Manifesto.

It's simply a strawman to claim that they are the "10 Planks of Communism"

[robbo203]

Because it remains as modern-day propaganda put against the Communist movement. And to better understand it, means to better debunk the propaganda put against us.


The better way to debunk such propaganda is to point out that these state capitalist reforms do not constitute communism, that modern day communists see no need to advocate them and that Marx and Engels later in their lives downplayed if not completely repudiated them (see 1872 Preface to the Communist Manifesto)

[The Vegan Marxist]

The better way to debunk such propaganda is to point out that these state capitalist reforms do not constitute communism, that modern day communists see no need to advocate them and that Marx and Engels later in their lives downplayed if not completely repudiated them (see 1872 Preface to the Communist Manifesto)

I already did, as shown in my response to the video that I shared to all of you. I even pointed out, through a link to Marxists.org, that Marx later stated that it was now outdated.

[robbo203]

I already did, as shown in my response to the video that I shared to all of you. I even pointed out, through a link to Marxists.org, that Marx later stated that it was now outdated.

Great. So now we can focus solely on full scale communism and the abolition of the wages system. No need for any more talk of transitional societies that retain wage labour and a state. Because that was the rationale behind these state capitalist reforms - to "increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible". Whether or not such reforms would have made any difference is a moot point but in any event we have have the technological potential now to proceed immediately to communism. All we are lacking is the will, and the consciousness that goes with it, on a mass scale.

[KurtFF8]

Great. So now we can focus solely on full scale communism and the abolition of the wages system. No need for any more talk of transitional societies that retain wage labour and a state. Because that was the rationale behind these state capitalist reforms - to "increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible". Whether or not such reforms would have made any difference is a moot point but in any event we have have the technological potential now to proceed immediately to communism. All we are lacking is the will, and the consciousness that goes with it, on a mass scale.

Are you labeling Socialist states like the USSR "state capitalist reforms"?

This isn't because I disagree with the theories of "state capitalism," but to call those systems, versions of reforms seems to be to just be inaccurate. There were revolutions you know.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Doesn't the right-wing ninja we see in the video say that whoever registers his marriage or the births of his children is really a communist?

Hmm... you also might want to correct that misleading thought... :rolleyes:

[Zanthorus]

Probably the most useful document in this regard is this piece pointed out to me by ZeroNowhere (I should really get around to reading everything on MIA sometime): The Communists and Karl Heinzen by Friedrich Engels (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/09/26.htm)

Relevant quote:


But Herr Heinzen also promises social reforms. Of course, the indifference of the people towards his appeals has gradually forced him to. And what kind of. reforms are these? They are such as the Communists themselves suggest in preparation for the abolition of private property. The only point Herr Heinzen makes that deserves recognition he has borrowed from the Communists, the Communists whom he attacks so violently, and even that is reduced in his hands to utter nonsense and mere day-dreaming. All measures to restrict competition and the accumulation of capital in the hands of individuals, all restriction or suppression of the law of inheritance, all organisation of labour by the state, etc., all these measures are not only possible as revolutionary measures, but actually necessary. They are possible because the whole insurgent proletariat is behind them and maintains them by force of arms. They are possible, despite all the difficulties and disadvantages which are alleged against them by economists, because these very difficulties and disadvantages will compel the proletariat to go further and further until private property has been completely abolished, in order not to lose again what it has already won. They are possible as preparatory steps, temporary transitional stages towards the abolition of private property, but not in any other way.

The basic point of the demands is that they're purpose built to cause economic instability if implemented within the boundaries of capitalist production relations. In defending it's progressive gains, therefore, the proletariat would be forced to go further and further in it's attack on private property until they finally wound up at communism. The Manifesto's demands are transitional demands intendened to make society pass over through a process of "revolution in permanence" until it finally winds up at communism. The whole point of the demands is that they don't constitute socialism but are demands to be implemented while capitalist production relations still exist.

[robbo203]

Are you labeling Socialist states like the USSR "state capitalist reforms"?

This isn't because I disagree with the theories of "state capitalism," but to call those systems, versions of reforms seems to be to just be inaccurate. There were revolutions you know.


I would not call the ex Soviet Union a "socialist state" (which to me is a contradiction in terms anyway) but rather an example of state capitalism. Yes the Soviet Union - or rather, Russia - had a revolution but its was a revolution that established state capitalism as the predominant mode of production as Lenin himself recognised. In other words a capitalist revolution

State capitalism does not have to be introduced by a revolution (which presupposes the existence of pre-capitalist relations of production as was the case in Tsarist Russia). An already established capitalist society can gravitate towards a state capitalist model via reforms of the kind suggested in the Communist Manifesto. This does not involve a change in the basic capitalist relationships of production only a change in the form of these relationships and therefore would not constitute a revolution. properly speaking. It would only be a change from one variant of capitalism to another

[robbo203]

Probably the most useful document in this regard is this piece pointed out to me by ZeroNowhere (I should really get around to reading everything on MIA sometime): The Communists and Karl Heinzen by Friedrich Engels (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/09/26.htm)

Relevant quote:



The basic point of the demands is that they're purpose built to cause economic instability if implemented within the boundaries of capitalist production relations. In defending it's progressive gains, therefore, the proletariat would be forced to go further and further in it's attack on private property until they finally wound up at communism. The Manifesto's demands are transitional demands intendened to make society pass over through a process of "revolution in permanence" until it finally winds up at communism. The whole point of the demands is that they don't constitute socialism but are demands to be implemented while capitalist production relations still exist.

I think this is a case of wishful thinking in the extreme. If transitional demands are intended to "cause instability if implemented within the boundaries of capitalist productions relations" then you can bet your bottom dollar that it is the working class that will bear the brunt of the ensuing hardship with consequences that are not hard to imagine

I suppose Engels was thinking in terms of a situation in which the mass of workers were not communist-minded (if they were there would be no point in going through this rigmarole of so called transitional demands). The most likely outcome is not the increasing radicalisation of the working class but its demoralisation and caving in to imperatives of capitalist business reality. Indeed, it might even serve to entrench their capitalistic outlook and their acceptance of the capitalist rules of the game as unalterable.

I assume Engels wrote this peice when he was fairly young; I doubt whether the mature Engels would have fallen so easily for this obvious tosh. But I stand to be corrected

[Ocean Seal]

Doesn't the right-wing ninja we see in the video say that whoever registers his marriage or the births of his children is really a communist?

Hmm... you also might want to correct that misleading thought... :rolleyes:
This guy is such a capitalist that he even calls Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin communists. Well guys if he is right that means we won no?

[KurtFF8]

I would not call the ex Soviet Union a "socialist state" (which to me is a contradiction in terms anyway) but rather an example of state capitalism. Yes the Soviet Union - or rather, Russia - had a revolution but its was a revolution that established state capitalism as the predominant mode of production as Lenin himself recognised. In other words a capitalist revolution

State capitalism does not have to be introduced by a revolution (which presupposes the existence of pre-capitalist relations of production as was the case in Tsarist Russia). An already established capitalist society can gravitate towards a state capitalist model via reforms of the kind suggested in the Communist Manifesto. This does not involve a change in the basic capitalist relationships of production only a change in the form of these relationships and therefore would not constitute a revolution. properly speaking. It would only be a change from one variant of capitalism to another

At the risk of getting off topic:

1) How is a "Socialist State" a contradiction in terms in any way?

and 2) What about the mode of production and relations of production made the USSR "capitalist" in terms of commodity production and the distribution of the means of production?

Perhaps if you are to take a non-Marxist definition of Capitalism, an argument could be made that the USSR was always "just capitalist" but it's extremely difficult to reconcile the Marxist conception of capitalism (one I, and many other personally think is the most in depth and valuable conception of it) with the idea that the USSR was "state capitalist"

[Zanthorus]

1) How is a "Socialist State" a contradiction in terms in any way?

Depends how you use the term socialism. Some have used it to refer to the transition period between capitalism and communism interchangeably with the DotP, which is fair enough (Although I would argue that this usage causes undue confusion in some respects). However, Marx and Engels used socialism and communism interchangeably apart from in early works like the Manifesto when they wanted to distuinguish the communist movement from the various socialist movements of the time which were by and large forms of "utopian socialism". Lenin also used socialism to refer to what Marx called the lower-phase of communism. In both of these latter senses (I have a feeling that robbo is referring the Marx/Engels use of socialism), socialism is a stateless society.

[KurtFF8]

Well since Marx (and I believe Marx even used it this way) Socialism has been used to describe a workers state.

[Aloysius]

He looks like this guy (http://www.thatanimeblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/mouth_of_sauron.jpg)

[Apoi_Viitor]

Well since Marx (and I believe Marx even used it this way) Socialism has been used to describe a workers state.

This is a question that I've struggled with for a while - When the proletariat collectivizes modes of production, overthrows the bourgeios ruling class, etc. Wouldn't that end class society immediately? I don't understand this concept of a transitory state (Which from what I've read, seems to be an integral part of Marxist-Leninist though). Why would classes still exist?

Well, I kind of do - I believe most Marxists define the state as a tool of oppression one class imposes upon the others. But when the bourgeios class is overthrown, what class divisions would still exist? I assume proponents of the transitory-state theory view that the socialist state is necessary to prevent reactionaries from gaining power - but won't there always be reactionaries? I find it hard to believe that advocation for a capitalist system will eventually, completely cease to exist (I assume there will always be a existing minority which wants to oppress/exploit the majority). Then still, if means of production are collectivized, how would reactionaries be a separate class?

[KurtFF8]

Well it comes down to a question of: what happens after the bourgeoisie are overthrown? Is it all just over then?

Of course the political revolutionary act of overthrowing the capitalist class doesn't mean that elements of that class won't attempt to restore their previous privlege in society. This can be seen just about every time a successful revolution took place: Paris Commune...crushed Russia: Russian civil war which included international capitalist solidarity to some extent Cuba: bay of pigs amongst countless other attempts to overthrow, etc. etc. and the list goes on and on

I think it's also important to take into account the fact that the "transitional state" has only ever existed alongside major political economic powers that have tried to undermine it. Minus those external forces (which certainly agitate internal forces) we would be talking about a different scenario.

So yes in the ideal world of a full revolution with just a societies class system in transition: the transition to classlessness shouldn't be too long and harsh. History has shown this to be an unlikely thing unfortunately though.

[robbo203]

At the risk of getting off topic:

1) How is a "Socialist State" a contradiction in terms in any way?"

Because the existence of a state in Marxist theory presupposes the existence of class relations. Socialism (which in traditional Marxian - i.e. non leninist - usage was a synonym for communism) is a classless and ipso facto a stateless society. So you cannot have a state in socialism meaning you cannot have a "socialist state". Its a contradiction in terms



and 2) What about the mode of production and relations of production made the USSR "capitalist" in terms of commodity production and the distribution of the means of production?

Perhaps if you are to take a non-Marxist definition of Capitalism, an argument could be made that the USSR was always "just capitalist" but it's extremely difficult to reconcile the Marxist conception of capitalism (one I, and many other personally think is the most in depth and valuable conception of it) with the idea that the USSR was "state capitalist"


Actually the exact opposite is the case. It is the non-marxists like the Liberals and the Conservatives who habitually point to the the USSR as being an example of a "non-capitalist society". It is the marxists who point out to the contrary that the Soviet Union was a preeminently capitalist society bearing the essential hallmarks of capitalism such as generalised wage labour, commodity production and the accumulation of capital out of surplus value.

The difference between Soviet style capitalism and Western capitalism is one of form not substance. State ownership does not negate capitalism but is fully compatible with it. Like Frederick Engels said:

The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of the productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage workers - proletarians. The capitalist relationship is not done away with. (Socialism Utopian and Scientific)

[Zanthorus]

Well since Marx (and I believe Marx even used it this way) Socialism has been used to describe a workers state.

Marx used socialism interchangeably with communism to describe a society withut commodity production, market exchange, wage-labour etc apart from when he was polemicising against non-Marxist socialists. This is a fairly well-acknowledged fact apart from among the majority of those calling themselves Leninists (Excepting Bordigists and those influenced by Bordiga). The idea of socialism as being a "workers' state" originates from the second international. You can believe that Marx used the word in anyway you want, there are a hell of a lot of things which even "Marxists" believe about Marx that simply aren't true.

In this case we also have incidences where Marx says things directly to the contrary of what you're saying:


The more developed and the more comprehensive is the political understanding of a nation, the more the proletariat will squander its energies – at least in the initial stages of the movement – in senseless, futile uprisings that will be drowned in blood. Because it thinks in political terms, it regards the will as the cause of all evils and force and the overthrow of a particular form of the state as the universal remedy. Proof: the first outbreaks of the French proletariat. The workers in Lyons imagined their goals were entirely political, they saw themselves purely as soldiers of the republic, while in reality they were the soldiers of socialism. Thus their political understanding obscured the roots of their social misery, it falsified their insight into their real goal, their political understanding deceived their social instincts.

[...]

...the community from which the workers is isolated is a community of quite different reality and scope than the political community. The community from which his own labor separates him is life itself, physical and spiritual life, human morality, human activity, human enjoyment, human nature. Human nature is the true community of men. Just as the disasterous isolation from this nature is disproportionately more far-reaching, unbearable, terrible and contradictory than the isolation from the political community, so too the transcending of this isolation and even a partial reaction, a rebellion against it, is so much greater, just as the man is greater than the citizen and human life than political life. Hence, however limited an industrial revolt may be, it contains within itself a universal soul: and however universal a political revolt may be, its colossal form conceals a narrow split.

[...]

...without revolution, socialism cannot be made possible. It stands in need of this political act just as it stands in need of destruction and dissolution. But as soon as its organizing functions begin and its goal, its soul emerges, socialism throws its political mask aside.http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/08/07.htm

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Lyev
These "10 planks" are basically irrelevant in the 21st c.; even Marx, in his own lifetime (around 1870ish), wrote that they were out-of-date. They were drawn up largely in light of the 1848-49 revolutions that swept Europe shortly before Marx and Engels sat down and wrote the thing.
I agree with your historical analysis but not your conclusion. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water! Some of these points remain valid. I fail to see how the demand for the abolition of private property and inheritance is irrelevant in the 21st century. I must have must have been away on the day when capitalism surrendered its property and privilege; or missed the meeting when we decided that communism could be built on such things. I find it hard to imagine how we could sustain our claim to be communists if we are not demanding the abolition of capitalist social relations.



The basic point of the demands is that they're purpose built to cause economic instability if implemented within the boundaries of capitalist production relations. In defending it's progressive gains, therefore, the proletariat would be forced to go further and further in it's attack on private property until they finally wound up at communism. The Manifesto's demands are transitional demands intendened to make society pass over through a process of "revolution in permanence" until it finally winds up at communism. The whole point of the demands is that they don't constitute socialism but are demands to be implemented while capitalist production relations still exist.

Indeed, and many of the demands retain that explosive potential today. Even the relatively mild demand for progressive taxation is enough to send the bourgeoisie into fulminations about the 'politics of envy'. Then there is the call for full employment ("Equal liability of all to work") another benefit to the working class which the bourgeoisie cannot afford. So too, the call for free and equal public education, which would lift up a few billion people if implemented globally, is still something which the bourgeoisie resist, preferring education systems which privilege the rich and powerful. Meanwhile, anyone who thinks that the demand for the centralisation of credit is outmoded in the 21st century, hasn't been paying attention to the recent global finance crisis.
..................

Over the question about whether the workers state is a theoretical product of Marx or just Marxism, I can only say that in his rejection of utopianism and anarchism, Marx was certainly not the sort of thinker to imagine that the classless, fully-human society of Communism would mystically arise from one explosive big-bang revolution, as robbo203 seems to imagine.

[Zanthorus]

I think the demand for the gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country is probably the most relevant of the Manifesto's demands insofar as it's also an integral aspect of socialism.

And it is not being argued that Marx never argued for a "workers' state", the question is wether such is the same thing as socialism.

[Hit The North]

I think the demand for the gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country is probably the most relevant of the Manifesto's demands insofar as it's also an integral aspect of socialism.


Good call.


And it is not being argued that Marx never argued for a "workers' state", the question is whether such is the same thing as socialism.
Ok. But can a workers' state be capitalist and still be a workers' state? And if it's not capitalist and it's not socialist, what is it?

[robbo203]

Over the question about whether the workers state is a theoretical product of Marx or just Marxism, I can only say that in his rejection of utopianism and anarchism, Marx was certainly not the sort of thinker to imagine that the classless, fully-human society of Communism would mystically arise from one explosive big-bang revolution, as robbo203 seems to imagine.

That is not my position at all! Ive repeatedly argued that the "transition" should re reconceptualised as something that takes place before the political capture of power to immediately end capitalism, rather than after. In other words its an accumulative incremental process of consciousness changing with massive ramifications for the transformation of the entire social outlook well before this final coup de grace. Calling this a "mystical" process culminating in one "explosive big-bang revolution" is about as remote from my perspective as can be and does no justice to my argument at all.


Just because I have focussed on the intrinsic illogicalities and contradictions built into the concept of a transitional "workers state" after the capture of political power does emphatically not mean I reject the idea of gradual transformation of the social outlook, and even to some extent the scope of capitalism itself as the communist movement itself it grows, before this capture of political power

The "workers state" simply means that a communist or socialist revolution has not yet happened becuase we still live in a class society as evidenced by the fact that workers as a class still exist. This is my point. And following on from this I make a further point - that if the workers as a class still exist, they can only do so by virtue of being exploited by the capitalist class and that the so called workers state would necessarily be sanctioning this if that were the case. In other words it would not actually be a workers state at all but a capitalist state - perhaps with a social democratic or labour type government - and therefore logically cannot serve as a transition to communism/socialism.

The Leninists on the other hand have no counter argument to this argument but can only witter on feebly about it being "unrealistic" to just suddenly have a classless communist society - completely overlooking that nobody is suggesting this and that the transition to communism would have long taken place within existing capitalist society and long before the capture of political power by communist workers to end capitalism and the state in one fell swoop

[KurtFF8]

Because the existence of a state in Marxist theory presupposes the existence of class relations. Socialism (which in traditional Marxian - i.e. non leninist - usage was a synonym for communism) is a classless and ipso facto a stateless society. So you cannot have a state in socialism meaning you cannot have a "socialist state". Its a contradiction in terms

I think we're getting in an argument over semantics here. Socialism has also often been understood as when the working class achieves power (i.e. interchangeable with the dictatorship of the proletariat) but I can see why you'd make that distinction and claim.





Actually the exact opposite is the case. It is the non-marxists like the Liberals and the Conservatives who habitually point to the the USSR as being an example of a "non-capitalist society". It is the marxists who point out to the contrary that the Soviet Union was a preeminently capitalist society bearing the essential hallmarks of capitalism such as generalised wage labour, commodity production and the accumulation of capital out of surplus value.

The difference between Soviet style capitalism and Western capitalism is one of form not substance. State ownership does not negate capitalism but is fully compatible with it. Like Frederick Engels said:

The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of the productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage workers - proletarians. The capitalist relationship is not done away with. (Socialism Utopian and Scientific)

Actually, not very many Marxists claim that the USSR was "capitalist." There of course is a small tendency of "state capitalist theory" (of course by Tony Cliff et al) who try to claim that factors such as international competition made the USSR a capitalist society. But for the most part, the USSR lacked the material structure to consider it "capitalist" in any way.

The relationship of commodity production, wage labor, and "surplus value extraction" were drastically different under the USSR's planned economy compared to the marketplace of Capital.

I feel that this was thoroughly debunked in the book Western Marxism and the Soviet Union (http://www.brill.nl/product_id21864.htm) much better than I can do justice here after just waking up. That book (especially towards the end) examines the man factors that Marx used to analyze a capitalist society and demonstrated that the labeling of the USSR as capitalist, if anything, was a non-Marxist endeavor.

[Hit The North]

That is not my position at all! Ive repeatedly argued that the "transition" should re reconceptualised as something that takes place before the political capture of power to immediately end capitalism, rather than after. In other words its an accumulative incremental process of consciousness changing with massive ramifications for the transformation of the entire social outlook well before this final coup de grace. Calling this a "mystical" process culminating in one "explosive big-bang revolution" is about as remote from my perspective as can be and does no justice to my argument at all.

Well, this still places the revolution as the culmination of a process where all the important work has already been done - consciousness raising, etc. - so this coup de grace only needs to fell the final wall which stands between the human race and its communist future. So not a big-bang revolution but a pop-gun revolution? I stand corrected.


...and that the transition to communism would have long taken place within existing capitalist society and long before the capture of political power by communist workers to end capitalism and the state in one fell swoop Apart from the nonsensical notion that the transition to communism, which is the negation of capitalism, will have "taken place" before the abolition of capitalist property relations and within the shadow of the bourgeois state, are you advocating a theory of the "withering away of the bourgeoisie"? If not, what are they up to whilst these massive ramifications are undermining their control over society, allowing us to do nothing more than send a workers militia man to arrest them and formally proclaim communism after a victory parade?

It might happen like that (in Toy Town), but I fail to see how you expect this consciousness to incrementally accumulate if you are going to argue, as you did earlier in this thread, that "that modern day communists see no need to advocate" the abolition of capitalist property relations? Under what banner do workers struggle and under what banner does class consciousness accumulate?

Perhaps it is your method of building towards the revolution which is mystical? You express it well here:


Whether or not such reforms would have made any difference is a moot point but in any event we have have the technological potential now to proceed immediately to communism. All we are lacking is the will, and the consciousness that goes with it, on a mass scale.
Well, hey, we should tell everybody! Unfortunately, consciousness is tied to social relations, and it is the latter which need revolutionising first.

The problem is that because revolutions are the result of social crises and class struggle, and not based on an "incremental accumulation of consciousness", we have no way of knowing at what point in the historical process the revolution comes, or what shape the working class is in when it does. Did the English Revolution establish bourgeois society over night? No, it took another 60 years before bourgeois society began to assert itself. During the revolutions of the 1640s, bourgeois society was barely even conscious of itself. Did the French revolution sweep away the ancien regime and install the rational bourgeois society which it was extremely self-conscious of? Not without a further century of political turmoil. Did the Bolsheviks lead the workers to a workers state? No, because the objective situation - the premature nature of the revolution and its consequent isolation - made it impossible. These examples are just to illustrate that history contains twists and turns and is neither predictable nor neat enough to accommodate your "incremental accumulation of consciousness" thesis.

[Zanthorus]

Ok. But can a workers' state be capitalist and still be a workers' state? And if it's not capitalist and it's not socialist, what is it?

This depends what you mean by "capitalist". Obviously after any workers revolution the bourgeoisie would be quite quickly expropriated. The class relations of capitalism would cease to exist. On the other hand, commodity production, money, wage-labour and such would continue to exist for quite a while, although these elements would decrease as the socialisation of the economy continued. Lenin and Trotsky both said that the USSR in it's early years was a kind of capitalism, but one without a bourgeois class and which was heading towards socialism because of the nature of it's state and the balance of class forces decisively in favour of the proletariat.

Amade Bordiga simply used the designation "transitional economy". I think that works the best.

[robbo203]

I think we're getting in an argument over semantics here. Socialism has also often been understood as when the working class achieves power (i.e. interchangeable with the dictatorship of the proletariat) but I can see why you'd make that distinction and claim.



Marx never described socialism in this way - a term that he used interchangeably with communism. Equating socialism with the DOTP is a specifically Leninist usage





Actually, not very many Marxists claim that the USSR was "capitalist." There of course is a small tendency of "state capitalist theory" (of course by Tony Cliff et al) who try to claim that factors such as international competition made the USSR a capitalist society. But for the most part, the USSR lacked the material structure to consider it "capitalist" in any way.

The relationship of commodity production, wage labor, and "surplus value extraction" were drastically different under the USSR's planned economy compared to the marketplace of Capital..

You are way off the mark if you think the state capitalist perspective of the USSR boils down to the Cliffite model. There are several other state capitalist theories some of them of much longer standing and more credible in my view. I reject the argument that the Soviet Union lacked the material structure to be considered capitalist. It clearly and demonstrably bore all the primary hallmarks of capitalism such as generalised wage labour. The form in which these hallmarks presented themselves were different in the SU but the substance was exactly the same as in any other capitalist state



I feel that this was thoroughly debunked in the book Western Marxism and the Soviet Union (http://www.brill.nl/product_id21864.htm) much better than I can do justice here after just waking up. That book (especially towards the end) examines the man factors that Marx used to analyze a capitalist society and demonstrated that the labeling of the USSR as capitalist, if anything, was a non-Marxist endeavor.

I havent read this book but I can think I can confidently predict its main lines of argument all of which have comprehensively demolished by others including Marxian writers. See for example State Capitalism: The Wages System under New Management by Buick & Crump , two marxists who do a pretty effective demolition on the claims that the Soviet Union was something other than a system of of state run capitalism

[robbo203]

Well, this still places the revolution as the culmination of a process where all the important work has already been done - consciousness raising, etc. - so this coup de grace only needs to fell the final wall which stands between the human race and its communist future. So not a big-bang revolution but a pop-gun revolution? I stand corrected..

You can call it what you will but the general idea is that the capture of state power is merely the rounding off or culmination of a historical process of revolutionary change



Apart from the nonsensical notion that the transition to communism, which is the negation of capitalism, will have "taken place" before the abolition of capitalist property relations and within the shadow of the bourgeois state, are you advocating a theory of the "withering away of the bourgeoisie"?
..

Come come - you know very well this is not what I said. Capitalism remains until the capture of political power by a communist majority and is then done away . What I was alluding to was the growth of communist consciousness and , coupled with this, the growth of non-capitalist institutions and relationships prefiguring communism to a limited extent in the form of intentional communities, mutual aid projects and the like. I said quite clearly that this latter would happen only to an extent. If it went all the way there would hardly be any need to capture the state anyway would there now? So, no, the bourgeoisie do not "wither away" in this scenario but their power and influence is certainly progressively diminished



If not, what are they up to whilst these massive ramifications are undermining their control over society, allowing us to do nothing more than send a workers militia man to arrest them and formally proclaim communism after a victory parade?
..

The answer to your question is that capitalist rule would be steadily losing legitimacy as communist consciousness gained ground. Indeed , this is one of the reasons why I question the idea dogmatically held by some on the left that a communist revolution must necessarily be a violent one in which the state will viciously clamp down on the movement as it becomes a significant force in its own right. On the contrary, I think as the movement grows so the climate of opinion will dramatically change and, with it, the kind of opposition the movement can expect to encounter. Far from facing some kind of threat of fascist repression I think the opposite will be far more likely - that more and more the parties of capitalism will evolve in a bid to accomodate the changing outlook of society. Two utterly contradictory set of ideas cannot both flourish in the same soil. One most grow at the expense of the other



It might happen like that (in Toy Town), but I fail to see how you expect this consciousness to incrementally accumulate if you are going to argue, as you did earlier in this thread, that "that modern day communists see no need to advocate" the abolition of capitalist property relations? Under what banner do workers struggle and under what banner does class consciousness accumulate?
..

What on earth are you talking about??? Are you sure you are not confusing me with somebody else? When did I ever suggest "that modern day communists see no need to advocate" the abolition of capitalist property relations? I actually said something quite different - namely that modern day communists see no need to advocate state capitalist refroms such as those listed in the Communist Manifesto. Please be a bit more attentive in your criticism in future.



Well, hey, we should tell everybody! Unfortunately, consciousness is tied to social relations, and it is the latter which need revolutionising first.

..

Ha! Now youve just gone and shot yourself in the foot! If consciousness is "tied to social relations" in the way you suggest then how on earth are the latter to be revolutionised without the intention (i.e. consciounsess) to do just this? In other words, the revolutionising of the social relations of production have to involve the conscious desire to transcend them . Either that or you just expressing fatalistic nonsense wihich is completely at odds with the marxian idea that the proletarian movement is the self conscious movement of the immense majority (Communist Mainfesto) . And this from somebody who can accuse others of espousing a "toy town" version of revolution. Your own version is evidently not very well thought out, is it now?




The problem is that because revolutions are the result of social crises and class struggle, and not based on an "incremental accumulation of consciousness", we have no way of knowing at what point in the historical process the revolution comes, or what shape the working class is in when it does.
..

This is mechanistic and simplistic. Revolutuions are not simply the result of social crises and class struggle, they are mediated by consciousness . The ideas themselves dont stand alone but are drawn from the class struggle and in turn recipriocally influence the struggle. Its a two way interactive process not a one way street.

As far as a communist revolution is concerned while we may not know what shape the working class is in (whatever this means) when it happens we do know that a significant majority must understand and want communism in order for a communist revolution to happen. Communism absolutely neccessitates conscious majority support and therefore a revolutiuon which does not have this conscious majority support will not be a communist revolution becuase the outcome will not be communism



Did the English Revolution establish bourgeois society over night? No, it took another 60 years before bourgeois society began to assert itself. During the revolutions of the 1640s, bourgeois society was barely even conscious of itself. Did the French revolution sweep away the ancien regime and install the rational bourgeois society which it was extremely self-conscious of? Not without a further century of political turmoil. Did the Bolsheviks lead the workers to a workers state? No, because the objective situation - the premature nature of the revolution and its consequent isolation - made it impossible. These examples are just to illustrate that history contains twists and turns and is neither predictable nor neat enough to accommodate your "incremental accumulation of consciousness" thesis.

Has it occured to you that this might be because you are grossly simplifying would is entailed by the "incremental accumulation of consciousness" thesis. I have already had to pull you up several times on your wild misinterpretations of what I have been saying but even what you are saying here is self evidently contradiuctory. You are basically saying that bourgeois revolutions took a long time to consolidate themselves and therefore so to must a communist revolution. Apart from the questiuonable use of bourgeois revolution as a template for communist revolution, there is the point that the notion of a lengthy time period is itself implicit in "incremental accumulation of consciousness" thesis. The difference is that that in the case of the communist revolution this happens before the capture of state power not after it. The communist Revolution being the "most radical rupture with traditional property relations" (Communist Manifesto) this means that once the communist movement captures the power of the state it abolishes capitalism at a stroke, all the preparatory work having been done beforehand

[Hit The North]

You can call it what you will but the general idea is that the capture of state power is merely the rounding off or culmination of a historical process of revolutionary change


Yes, this is a general idea, but not a general idea of Marxism. In the Critique of the Gotha Programme, he argues that "between capitalist and communist society lies a period of revolutionary transformation from one to the other. There is a corresponding period of transition in the political sphere and in this period the state can only take the form of a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." In other words, the seizure of political power by the proletariat is the precondition for the "historical process of revolutionary change", as you call it.

You may want to argue that capitalism has now developed to the point where this dictatorship is unnecessary, that somehow we have actually arrived and now only need the conciousness to realise it, but you will need to provide evidence for this startling fact. Likewise, any evidence for a revolution which was merely the coup de grace for revolutionary changes which had already occurred would be a valuable ballast for your argument.


Come come - you know very well this is not what I said.
That's exactly what you said. You seem to imagine that non-capitalist, pre figuratively communist association can exist and thrive within the capitalist mode of production. You say it here, as well:


What I was alluding to was the growth of communist consciousness and , coupled with this, the growth of non-capitalist institutions and relationships prefiguring communism to a limited extent in the form of intentional communities, mutual aid projects and the like. I said quite clearly that this latter would happen only to an extent. If it went all the way there would hardly be any need to capture the state anyway would there now? So, no, the bourgeoisie do not "wither away" in this scenario but their power and influence is certainly progressively diminishedWhat kind of non-capitalist institutions are these? Show me where they proliferate under the rule of the capitalist mode of production today? Are they more prolific than they were in 19th Century capitalist society? Where is the growth in communist consciousness, compared to its levels in 1888 or 1955?

And what is this "extent" you are talking about? Enough to provoke the capitalist state?

Actually, while we're on the subject, the only pre-revolutionary "mutual aid projects" the capitalists have ever been afraid of are those we call soviets. And when workers have already seized control of the means of production, the question of political state power is immediate - as October 1917 demonstrated.


I question the idea dogmatically held by some on the left that a communist revolution must necessarily be a violent one in which the state will viciously clamp down on the movement as it becomes a significant force in its own right. On the contrary, I think as the movement grows so the climate of opinion will dramatically change and, with it, the kind of opposition the movement can expect to encounter. Far from facing some kind of threat of fascist repression I think the opposite will be far more likely - that more and more the parties of capitalism will evolve in a bid to accomodate the changing outlook of society.
I can only admire your optimism, if not your grasp of empirical history. But it would be nice to have class struggle without the struggle, as you depict it above, wouldn't it?


Two utterly contradictory set of ideas cannot both flourish in the same soil. One most grow at the expense of the other That's like saying social life can't be contradictory. Again, nothing to do with Marxism. However, you'd be correct if you stated that two contradictory social powers such as capitalist relations side by side with communist relations, cannot co-exist within the same society - at least nort without a mighty struggle. Again, see the problems of dual power in Russia 1917.


What on earth are you talking about??? Are you sure you are not confusing me with somebody else? When did I ever suggest "that modern day communists see no need to advocate" the abolition of capitalist property relations? I actually said something quite different - namely that modern day communists see no need to advocate state capitalist refroms such as those listed in the Communist Manifesto. Please be a bit more attentive in your criticism in future.

You need to be more cautious in your claims. I pick this fight with you because your first entry in this discussion was to condemn the "10 planks" as antiquated and nothing to do with what modern communists demand. Here is what you wrote:


The better way to debunk such propaganda is to point out that these state capitalist reforms do not constitute communism, that modern day communists see no need to advocate them and that Marx and Engels later in their lives downplayed if not completely repudiated them (see 1872 Preface to the Communist Manifesto)So do you believe that the calls for the abolition of private property and the abolition of inheritance, are state capitalist measures? Do you believe that the call for universal education and an end to child labour are state capitalist demands and unworthy of communist agitation?


Ha! Now youve just gone and shot yourself in the foot! If consciousness is "tied to social relations" in the way you suggest then how on earth are the latter to be revolutionised without the intention (i.e. consciounsess) to do just this? In other words, the revolutionising of the social relations of production have to involve the conscious desire to transcend them .
True, but my criticism is that you appear to assume some linear accumulation of consciousness over time, whereas history demonstrates that these ideas can arise very quickly as a consequence of struggle and be thrown back just as quickly in the face of reaction.


This is mechanistic and simplistic. Revolutuions are not simply the result of social crises and class struggle, they are mediated by consciousness . The ideas themselves dont stand alone but are drawn from the class struggle and in turn reciprocally influence the struggle. Its a two way interactive process not a one way street.Yes, it's dialectical. However, I'd suggest that a social crisis is also a crisis in consciousness and that the class struggle entails conscious struggle, so only your reading of my remarks was mechanical.


You are basically saying that bourgeois revolutions took a long time to consolidate themselves and therefore so to must a communist revolution. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that so far none of these world historical revolutionary events have happened due to some incremental accumulation of consciousness but as collective responses, sometimes contradictory and confused over their own aims, to systemic crisis. Further, that revolutionary periods are protracted and can sometimes begin with a seizure of state power or don't take form except through a series of social convulsions over time. No revolution can immediately rid society of the old classes and the old consciousness. History is not expunged.

Your schematic theory of developing "communist consciousness" and non-capitalist forms of association under the rule of capital, which will provide the basis for the final abolition of capital, is a throw back to the dreams of the utopian socialists.

[robbo203]

Yes, this is a general idea, but not a general idea of Marxism. In the Critique of the Gotha Programme, he argues that "between capitalist and communist society lies a period of revolutionary transformation from one to the other. There is a corresponding period of transition in the political sphere and in this period the state can only take the form of a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." In other words, the seizure of political power by the proletariat is the precondition for the "historical process of revolutionary change", as you call it.

You may want to argue that capitalism has now developed to the point where this dictatorship is unnecessary, that somehow we have actually arrived and now only need the conciousness to realise it, but you will need to provide evidence for this startling fact. Likewise, any evidence for a revolution which was merely the coup de grace for revolutionary changes which had already occurred would be a valuable ballast for your argument..


You are confusing things here. By revolution I mean a change in the economic basis of society. The revolutiuon is effected by the communist minded working class seizing power and declaring capitalism null and void. This is fully consistent, with the point about the seizure of political power by the proletariat being the precondition for the "historical process of revolutionary change",. But what I am saying is that in order for the proletariat to seize power and effect a revolutionary change it has to be substantially communist-minded in the first place. This is absolutely essential and is integral to the Marxian perspective. As Engels points out in the introduction to Marx's Class struggles in France

The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for [with body and soul].

So you are quite wrong if you imagine that the preparatory work of building up communist consciousness prior to the capture of state power is not fully recognised by marxism

On the Dictatorship of the Proletariat here I make no bones about the fact that I radically depart from the marxist endorsement of this concept which I consider to be self contradictory and incoherent for reasons which i have explained often enough elsewhere. The whole idea of the DOTP should be completely scrapped in my view. It is illogical and the purported rationale for having it no longer applies anyway.



That's exactly what you said. You seem to imagine that non-capitalist, pre figuratively communist association can exist and thrive within the capitalist mode of production. You say it here, as well:
.

No that is not what I said. I was responding your point attributing to me the idea that capitalism would somehow automaticaly disappear of its own accord before the capture of state power would enact it out of existence. I do not reject the need to capture state power to dismantle capitalism butm at the same time, I do not believe the scope and extent of capitalist relations of property relationships will remain unaffected by the growth of the communist movement. Prefigurative relationships will tend to take root and develop in line with the growth of this movement.



What kind of non-capitalist institutions are these? Show me where they proliferate under the rule of the capitalist mode of production today? Are they more prolific than they were in 19th Century capitalist society? Where is the growth in communist consciousness, compared to its levels in 1888 or 1955?

And what is this "extent" you are talking about? Enough to provoke the capitalist state?.

Well trying googling "intentional communities" for a start and you might learn something. There are plenty of other examples of kinds of prefigurative non-capitalist relations from self help groups to freecycling to LETs and the like.

The point is not that they are presently evident in great abundance though compared to the left they are a veritable mass movement. What I am saying is that as the communist movement grows it prepares the ground and carves out space for such prefigurative relationships to take root in and expand



I can only admire your optimism, if not your grasp of empirical history. But it would be nice to have class struggle without the struggle, as you depict it above, wouldn't it??.

I can only admire your ability to airily evade the argument that was put to you. And for your information I did not say class struggle is without struggle (duh - perish the thought) but the revolution does not have to resort to violence. Look at the collapse of state capitalism in Eastern Europe. Apart from Romania there was very little violence involved



You need to be more cautious in your claims. I pick this fight with you because your first entry in this discussion was to condemn the "10 planks" as antiquated and nothing to do with what modern communists demand. Here is what you wrote:.


No it is YOU who needs to be more cautious in your claims. This is what you said I said and please dont deny it -"that modern day communists see no need to advocate" the abolition of capitalist property relations. I did NOT say there was no need to advocate the abolition of capitalist property relationships - that is precisely what I am advocating in calling for communism! What I actually said there was no need to advocate state capitalist reforms. Something entirely different!



So do you believe that the calls for the abolition of private property and the abolition of inheritance, are state capitalist measures? Do you believe that the call for universal education and an end to child labour are state capitalist demands and unworthy of communist agitation?:.

Substantially, yes, the ten planks that appeared in the Communist manifesto constitute a programme of state capitalist measures. Do you deny this? If you go along with agitating for such refroms however worthy they may appear, you will be drawn into a refromist paradigm which will eventually spell the demise of your communist aspirations. The history of the parties of the Second International with their minimum and maximum programmes bears witness. Without exception the maximum proigrame disappeared altogether



That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that so far none of these world historical revolutionary events have happened due to some incremental accumulation of consciousness but as collective responses, sometimes contradictory and confused over their own aims, to systemic crisis. Further, that revolutionary periods are protracted and can sometimes begin with a seizure of state power or don't take form except through a series of social convulsions over time. No revolution can immediately rid society of the old classes and the old consciousness. History is not expunged.

Which nicely illlustrates the very point that I am making that for you revolution is a reiteration of the process of bourgeoois revolution and that bourgeois revolution for you provides the template for any futire communist revolution - which overlooks the fundamental qualitiative differences between bourgeois revolutions and a communist revolution. You cannot mechanically infer from one what is likely to happen with the other.

This is also just a way of getting around having to acknowledge the simple fact that in order to effect a communist revolution you have to a clear working class majority who want and understand communism. The Engels quote above makes this absolutely clear. And if a communist majproity is required before you can have a communist revolutuoin then there is no way you can get out of the fact that is an accumulative progressive development unless you imagine that somehow magically we will all turn into communists overnight



Your schematic theory of developing "communist consciousness" and non-capitalist forms of association under the rule of capital, which will provide the basis for the final abolition of capital, is a throw back to the dreams of the utopian socialists.

Yes I wondered when the lazy smear of utopian socialism was going to be thrown at me except that what I am advocating is not exactly utopian socialism but much more eclectic than that. Marx and Engels had a rather more positive and less dogmatic approach to social experiments of this sort than you evidently do. Quite rightly they did not see how a new society could be born out of such experiments but neither did they reject the idea that such experiments could contribute towards the general movement towards such a society.

[anticap]

The right-"libertarian" and 2004 LPUSA POTUS candidate Michael Badnarik used to give an eight-hour 'course' on the US constitution in which he would declare the US effectively communist because the majority of the planks of the Manifesto were allegedly in place.

[KurtFF8]

You are way off the mark if you think the state capitalist perspective of the USSR boils down to the Cliffite model. There are several other state capitalist theories some of them of much longer standing and more credible in my view. I reject the argument that the Soviet Union lacked the material structure to be considered capitalist. It clearly and demonstrably bore all the primary hallmarks of capitalism such as generalised wage labour. The form in which these hallmarks presented themselves were different in the SU but the substance was exactly the same as in any other capitalist state

I didn't mean to suggest that the theory of state capitalism was only the Cliffite model.

It seems that the presence of wages themselves are the main thing that proponents of this theory harp on, which ignores the fact that generalized wage labor is only one aspect of the Capitalist Mode of production amongst others. And how production is owned, etc. etc.




I havent read this book but I can think I can confidently predict its main lines of argument all of which have comprehensively demolished by others including Marxian writers. See for example State Capitalism: The Wages System under New Management by Buick & Crump , two marxists who do a pretty effective demolition on the claims that the Soviet Union was something other than a system of of state run capitalism

The book is actually an analysis of all of the various arguments about the USSR and tends to let the arguments speak for themselves. I suggest you check it out. In my opinion, it demonstrates the serious shortcomings of the theory of State Capitalism. And the author does attempt to analyze all of the various theories towards the end, and makes an excellent case against this theory I would argue, but of course I'm sure this isn't what you would take from it.

I highly suggest it (not because I think you'll abandon the theory you're promoting or anything like that, it's an excellent book on the topic that I think you'd get a lot out of even if you retained the State Capitalist theory)

[Zanthorus]

Wage-labour is commodified labour-power. But the Soviet economy was a planned economy and the ruble was only used as a unit of account in the plans. No money, no exchange value, no commodities means no wage-labour. At least not in the sense which Marx used any of these terms. If simple renumeration was what Marx meant by wages, then it would make no sense for him to argue for non-circulable labour vouchers as the initial system of distribution which would exist in communism.