Capitalism>Socialism>Communism

[ar734]

Capitalism to socialism to communism. Is it a gradual transition or sudden and revolutionary? Did the SU fail because it tried to skip the socialism stage? And now has Russia returned to a kind of neo-capitalism which will then transition to socialism? Has China retreated to a kind of neo-socialism which will transition to communism?

[Bronco]

Russia didnt really even go through a Capitalist stage, never mind Socialist (it was starting to embrace it though with the likes of Witte, Stolypin etc.), I believe that Marx actually thought Britain would be the first to undergo a proletarian revolution

[Agent Ducky]

Russia didnt really even go through a Capitalist stage, never mind Socialist (it was starting to embrace it though with the likes of Witte, Stolypin etc.), I believe that Marx actually thought Britain would be the first to undergo a proletarian revolution

Yeah, Marx thought the most capitalist countries would go through the revolutions first, followed by less-industrialized, less-capitalist countries. But it actually turned out that the agrarian countries did, which is probably part of what screwed them up.

[Zanthorus]

Capitalism to socialism to communism. Is it a gradual transition or sudden and revolutionary?

I'm not sure at all what this means. I don't think it has ever been shown coherently there is a distinct and stable mode of production lying half-way between capitalism and communism called 'socialism'. It seems to work half-way decently as a justification for the policies of so-called 'Marxist-Leninist' regimes, which is the only reason I can fathom for the popularity of the idea.


neo-capitalism... neo-socialism

I'm not sure what you mean by these terms. The idea of a 'neo-capitalism' or 'neo-socialism' sounds like rubbish to me.


I believe that Marx actually thought Britain would be the first to undergo a proletarian revolution

Marx studied Britain and it's workers movement closely because it was the archetypal example of a capitalist country in the mid-19th century, one in which capitalist social relations had permeated every branch of industry. However that did not mean that he thought it would be the first country to have a revolution. Quite the opposite in fact. In 'The Class Struggles in France, 1848-50' he writes "Violent outbreaks naturally erupt sooner at the extremities of the bourgeois body than in its heart, because in the latter the possibilities of accommodation are greater than in the former." I believe initially like most mid-19th century revolutionaries living in the shadow of 1789-93 he viewed France as the land of revolutionary initiative. Towards the end of his life his study of the situation in Russia led him to the conclusion, stated clearly in the Preface to the 1882 Russian edition of the Manifesto that "Russia forms the vanguard of revolutionary action in Europe."

Of course the statement about outbreaks occuring more readily on the periphery of capitalism had one caveat added to it, namely that "the degree to which continental revolutions affect England is at the same time the thermometer that indicates to what extent these revolutions really put into question bourgeois life conditions, and to what extent they touch only their political formations." Or to put it in the much clearer words of the first chapter of the work "Just as the workers thought they would be able to emancipate themselves side by side with the bourgeoisie, so they thought they would be able to consummate a proletarian revolution within the national walls of France, side by side with the remaining bourgeois nations. But French relations of production are conditioned by the foreign trade of France, by her position on the world market and the laws thereof". Although a revolution would not necessarily start in Britain, unless it brought the workers' movement in Britain to power it would fail of necessity.

Similarly, the 1882 Russian preface states that the Russian revolution can transform Russia on a Communist basis only if it "becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West". A similar perspective was maintained by many revolutionaries in the Second International - that a Russian revolution would serve as the spark to ignite the proletarian revolution in Europe. Even as early as 1905 Lenin writes in 'The Revolutionary-Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasantry' that "If, after the Ninth of January, the Russian working class, under conditions of political slavery, was able to mobilise over a million proletarians for staunch, disciplined, collective action, then, given the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship, we will mobilise scores of millions of the urban and rural poor, and we will make the Russian political revolution the prelude to the socialist revolution in Europe." The pre-renegade Kautsky had also written along similar lines with regards the relation between revolution in Russia and Western Europe.


Yeah, Marx thought the most capitalist countries would go through the revolutions first, followed by less-industrialized, less-capitalist countries.

Again, this is false. To take another example besides Russia, when the Sepoy uprising was occuring in India at a time of relative social peace on the European continent, Marx remarked that India had become their best ally in the revolution. I think this is another one of those things that gets repeated ad nauseum so much that people who've never bothered to actually take the time to read Marx buy into it, I don't see it as having much basis in anything Marx wrote. The social revolution for Marx was not something that happened on a country by country basis, with one country falling and then the next in a kind of dominoe pattern. Of course, the revolutions establishing the political power of the proletariat were said to be national affairs, but the process of social transformation was said to be only possible on the basis of co-operation between all the advanced countries.

[ar734]

I'm not sure at all what this means. I don't think it has ever been shown coherently there is a distinct and stable mode of production lying half-way between capitalism and communism called 'socialism'. It seems to work half-way decently as a justification for the policies of so-called 'Marxist-Leninist' regimes, which is the only reason I can fathom for the popularity of the idea.

From Lenin, 1919:

"Theoretically, there can be no doubt that between capitalism and communism there lies a definite tranition period which must combine the features and properties of both these forms of social economy. This transition period has to be a period of struggle between dying capitalism and nascent communism—or, in other words, between capitalism which has been defeated but not destroyed and communism which has been born but is still very feeble."

Lenin discussed the separate stage of socialism somewhere else but I can't find it right now.



Here is the quote from State and Revolution::

"But the scientific distinction between socialism and communism is clear. What is usually called socialism was termed by Marx the “first”, or lower, phase of communist society. Insofar as the means of production becomes common property, the word “communism” is also applicable here, providing we do not forget that this is not complete communism. The great significance of Marx's explanations is that here, too, he consistently applies materialist dialectics, the theory of development, and regards communism as something which develops out of capitalism. Instead of scholastically invented, “concocted” definitions and fruitless disputes over words (What is socialism? What is communism?), Marx gives an analysis of what might be called the stages of the economic maturity of communism."



I'm not sure what you mean by these terms. The idea of a 'neo-capitalism' or 'neo-socialism' sounds like rubbish to me.

It simply is an attempt to describe the economic systems in Russia and China right now. How would you describe the economic systems of Rus and China?

Scientists talk now about the transitional phase changes between materials: such as the phase change of ice into liquied water into water vapor. Thus there is no separate state or stage of matter. Does that not apply to the phase transition from capitalism to socialism to communism?

[hatzel]

Yeah. Zanthorus knew (and even told you) that Lenin said all that stuff. He also said that its major purpose is just to excuse the actions of clearly non-communist ML regimes by saying 'well, this is just the transition stage, you have to wait until real communism comes'...

(Oh, and so you know, a socio-political system is totally incomparable to an ice cube. I know you Marxists like talking about 'scientific socialism', but seriously, when you're basing your politics on how an ice cube melts and evaporates, I really think you're taking that 'scientific' thing a little bit too far...)

[Phonic]

Russia didnt really even go through a Capitalist stage, never mind Socialist (it was starting to embrace it though with the likes of Witte, Stolypin etc.), I believe that Marx actually thought Britain would be the first to undergo a proletarian revolution

he said germany would be the best place to start a revolution as it was the most developed industrial nation, he also said Italy was where proper socialism started as a movement.

i think that was in the communist manifesto.

[ar734]

Lenin was not a communist? I think you need to explain that one.

A socio-economic system is a material part of nature and therefore obeys the material laws of nature. Ice transitions from solid to liquid when a certain amount of energy (conventionally defined as 32C) is added to the ice. The hydrogen bond between the molecules suddenly breaks; when enough of the molecules (I don't how many, but it is still a question of quantity) break then the transition phase is complete and liquid water forms.

In France the temp of the system had been increasing for hundreds of years, there had been a slow build up of capitalism over this time. Then in 1789 the system reached its breaking point and feudalism transitioned into capitalism. The same thing happened in Russia, with, I think an important difference. The capitalist system there had not become as fully developed as feudalism had in France. Communism was pre-mature, therefore deformed, or rather, partially formed.

[Zanthorus]

*Lenin quotes*

I am one of those heretics who doesn't always respond well to the use of argument ad Lenin. The first quote you bring up is actually quite ambiguous though, it doesn't say anything about 'socialism' and whether or not it postulates the existence of a stable mode of production existing between capitalism and communism could easily be debated. It's not entirely clear what is meant by having aspects of capitalism and aspects of communism. To my mind the distinction between the two is whether the labour of the immediate producers is directly part of the total social labour, or whether the social character of labour is affirmed indirectly through exchange. Either we have a market/commodity producing economy or we don't. If we do we have capitalism, if not we have communism. Of course one may have a greatly altered form of capitalism during the transition period in which production is increasingly socialised, nonetheless this is still a form of capitalism not communism.


How would you describe the economic systems of Rus and China?

Capitalism.

[HEAD ICE]

From Lenin, 1919:

"Theoretically, there can be no doubt that between capitalism and communism there lies a definite tranition period which must combine the features and properties of both these forms of social economy. This transition period has to be a period of struggle between dying capitalism and nascent communism—or, in other words, between capitalism which has been defeated but not destroyed and communism which has been born but is still very feeble."

Lenin discussed the separate stage of socialism somewhere else but I can't find it right now.



Here is the quote from State and Revolution::

"But the scientific distinction between socialism and communism is clear. What is usually called socialism was termed by Marx the “first”, or lower, phase of communist society. Insofar as the means of production becomes common property, the word “communism” is also applicable here, providing we do not forget that this is not complete communism. The great significance of Marx's explanations is that here, too, he consistently applies materialist dialectics, the theory of development, and regards communism as something which develops out of capitalism. Instead of scholastically invented, “concocted” definitions and fruitless disputes over words (What is socialism? What is communism?), Marx gives an analysis of what might be called the stages of the economic maturity of communism."

I don't think any communist worth his weight is going to deny that the beginning stages of communism is going to have the "birth marks" of capitalism to quote Marx. The first and second quote to me appear to be saying precisely this, not a socialist/capitalist "transitional" economy spoken of by "Marxists-Leninists" and some Trotskyists like Mandel.

In fact the first quote comes from a good piece by Lenin where he clearly states that Russia is still a capitalist society with a large peasant population. He doesn't say (and he never said) that Russia had a "transitional economy" (meaning post-capitalism) and especially never said that Russia had socialist production.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/oct/30.htm

However if you interpret that first quote to mean an early version of the idea of a "post-capitalist" economy than I would say that Lenin is incorrect.

[ar734]

Of course one may have a greatly altered form of capitalism during the transition period in which production is increasingly socialised, nonetheless this is still a form of capitalism not communism.



Capitalism.

A transition period from capitalism to communism. Isn't this period "socialism?" And if a social/economic system tries to go from one to the other, especially 'in one nation,' without the transition period, the transition probably fail. This is not to say that a nation may not be forced to make the change without the transition period (like the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, etc.)

For instance did some economies go from slavery to capitalism, without the intervening period of feudalism?

[HEAD ICE]

A transition period from capitalism to communism. Isn't this period "socialism?" And if a social/economic system tries to go from one to the other, especially 'in one nation,' without the transition period, the transition probably fail. This is not to say that a nation may not be forced to make the change without the transition period (like the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, etc.)

Lenin and other Marxists in the early 20th century referred to the first phase of communism described by Marx in Critique of the Gotha Program as socialism. In both cases, characteristics include a classless society, an elimination of the law of value, elimination of exchange, and production according to a common plan. At no point in the history of Russia or any other country has socialism or the first phase of communism been achieved.


For instance did some economies go from slavery to capitalism, without the intervening period of feudalism?Yes, the southern United States. It is a myth invented by Stalinists that modes of production have this set algebraic formula that they must go through. They disguise this as "materialism" but it is really nothing but idealism, it is a rejection of a real analysis of the social material factors in a given society and instead replaces it with an all applicable formula.

It is also hard to say that feudalism necessarily follows from slavery. The rise of feudalism in Europe after the Roman pillage economy (slavery/imperial loot) in my view had more to do with class struggles within the oppressing classes and the territorial civil arrangements of the Roman empire where tribes were relatively atonomous. This isn't something I have studied very much on and this is just what I remember from grade school, but I don't see why slavery-->feudalism should be part of the pseudo-Marxist pre-destination theories that some people ascribe to.