Socialism

[Comrade1]

How will buisnesses be run in the transitional phase of socialism, store such as best buy or home depot? :confused:

[robbo203]

How will buisnesses be run in the transitional phase of socialism, store such as best buy or home depot? :confused:

Socialism in traditional Marxian parlance is not a "transitional phase" but rather an alternative term for communism. Needless to say there will be no buying or selling in a socialist society

[Comrade1]

ok so there would be no buying or selling, so whats the point of a currency?:confused:

[NKVD]

Socialism in traditional Marxian parlance is not a "transitional phase" but rather an alternative term for communism. Needless to say there will be no buying or selling in a socialist society

Lenin's usage of socialism as the transitional phase is pretty well accepted. So it only makes sense to talk about socialism being the transition phase.

As for the OP, in the USSR for example, they used rubles, but set prices directly rather than using market forces. Obviously, it is a question as to what the best system is, but that is the system that has proven to be successful in Cuba or the USSR for example.

[robbo203]

Lenin's usage of socialism as the transitional phase is pretty well accepted. So it only makes sense to talk about socialism being the transition phase.

As for the OP, in the USSR for example, they used rubles, but set prices directly rather than using market forces. Obviously, it is a question as to what the best system is, but that is the system that has proven to be successful in Cuba or the USSR for example.


Point is that that Lenin's usage of socialism as a transitional phase is not a Marxian one. Before Lenin it was pretty well universally accepted that socialism was a moneyless wageless classless society (AKA comunism). Even people like Stalin in the early 1900s had described socialism in this way

Lenin was the prime mover (though not the only one) in bringing about a radical shift in the meaning of the term "Socialism". In Lenin's hands it came to be identified with state capitalism. Lenin understood well enough that Marxian socialism was simply not on the cards. Russia was technologically backward and the vast majority of the population were not socialist minded. So he sought to accommodate the term to the existing reality in the naive and utterly false belief that state capitalism would somehow serve as a transition to genuine socialism. History has shown him to be utterly mistaken in this regard.

The fact that the Soviet Union set prices bureaucratically rather than via the free play of market forces makes absolutely no difference to the essentially capitalist nature of the Soviet Union. The relevant point is that wealth took the form of commodities - articles sold on a market - and not whether or not those prices were fixed bueaucratically or freely arrived at.

[Jalapeno Enema]

How will buisnesses be run in the transitional phase of socialism, store such as best buy or home depot?
Under socialism, initially there will be confiscation of property, which would then be run for the benefit of the people rather then profit. This would include store chains such as those described. How exactly they would be run differs from different leftist ideologies, but the common theme is that rather then a few shareholders making vast profits people would share the labor and the profits.


ok so there would be no buying or selling, so whats the point of a currency?
As for currencies, Marx advocated "labour vouchers" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_voucher) rather then modern currency. This would be, however, a transitional means, as eventually currency in any sense will be eliminated.


Point is that that Lenin's usage of socialism as a transitional phase is not a Marxian one.Is it really necessary to argue this here? Comrade1 asked a question about the "transitional phase of socialism", so I'm pretty sure we all understand what s/he means.

[mikelepore]

It would be better if we could find a way to stop debating in the "learning" section, but novices keep on asking "how will" and" what would" questions, as though the plan were already written.

The real answer is that there are perhaps a hundred organizations that suggest very different answers. The truth about that wide variety of suggested answers should be included in, and perhaps the the central theme of, the answer given to the novice.

For example, robbo203 provided the answer above that is proposed by worldsocialism.org and worldincommon.org , which take no ideas from Lenin. The novice should consider that to be a proposal to be studied, just like a science student says, okay, after reading about Bohr's description of the atom, now let's go read about Heisenberg's description of the atom.

For myself, I consider the labor voucher method to be necessary, and I don't even consider it transitional - I consider it to be the final goal, the classless society achieved.

The answer to such questions can't be separated from the affiliations and opinions of the writers who answer them. The future isn't determined yet. There are no "how will" or "what would." To say "it's a big argument" _IS_ the answer. The beginner needs to learn that.

[Zanthorus]

Lenin's usage of socialism as the transitional phase is pretty well accepted. So it only makes sense to talk about socialism being the transition phase.

Lenin used the word socialism in The State and Revolution to refer to the 'lower phase of communism', and differentiates between this latter and the transitional phase. And it is not just a matter of what is the commonly accepted usage of the word. It is my opinion that the commonly accepted usage causes conceptual confusion by conflating the transition period with some historically seperate mode of production in between capitalism and communism, rather than the revolutionary transformation of one into the other.

[ZeroNowhere]

Lenin used the word socialism in The State and Revolution to refer to the 'lower phase of communism', and differentiates between this latter and the transitional phase.To be fair, though, the 'bourgeois state without the bourgeoisie' reading was more or less calling for the later contortions.

[Zanthorus]

To be even fairer, Lenin's uses the term 'socialism' to mean multiple things throughout the course of his works. During debates in the RCP in the 1918-22 period he equates socialism with state-capitalism turned to the interests of the whole people. This latter is of course fairly consistent with the 'Orthodox Marxism' of Kautsky and the Second International, and most of the problems with Lenin's work are problems with OM more broadly, rather than just 'Leninism'.

[Comrade1]

Thank you very much everyone, but can someone tell me if in the transitionary phase of socialism would it be accept if you work lets say 7 hours you could exchange that "labour certificate" for food in which would could live, so there would be no need for a currency, everyone could just work and eat

[mikelepore]

Thank you very much everyone, but can someone tell me if in the transitionary phase of socialism would it be accept if you work lets say 7 hours you could exchange that "labour certificate" for food in which would could live, so there would be no need for a currency, everyone could just work and eat

I think you would need some other products besides food. Dishes to put the food on, and forks to pick up the food. Table and chairs so you don't have eat sititing on the ground, and a home to put those things into. Also, most people wear clothing, and sleep in a bed, etc.

[Comrade1]

I agree totally, everyone could be guaranteed those if they work and contribute to society through collectivism, so no need for currency

[Comrade1]

Oh I agree, you would that all plus food if you work

[4 Leaf Clover]

Better question is , how were they run in Socialism. It is info you can actually google.

[Comrade1]

Ok so if people work we will give them that to mike but is there a need for currency