How long should socialism last?

[Mac]

Arright, I don't know if there was a thread like this before, but if there was, I didn't see it. Anyway, I just want to ask how long socialism will last before communism. Does it vary on the country, would it have to be longer in the U.S. for example?

[Nox]

Socialism will exist until the whole world is Socialist, then the transition to Communism can begin.

[Thirsty Crow]

Until the social division of labour is transcended.

[thesadmafioso]

It's dependent upon multiple factors, but there is no real point where socialism ceases to be and where communism is officially achieved. It is a false dichotomy to view the dialectical progression of Marxism in this overly simplified fashion.

A certain amount of time is demanded for the synthesis of class to be completed and for the contradictory aims of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to cease in conflict due to the disappearance of class. The proletarian state must be met with a society wherein the need for its perpetuation ceases, the conflict of capital and labor must be eliminated in full, and revolution must of reached the entire globe. There is also a certain period required for the influence of the civil repression of the institutions of capitalistic cultural hegemony to subside entirely and for it to be replaced with organs of the proletariat.

These are only a handful of the more prominent requirements, but as I have already stated, it is impossible to set a specific time frame or list of criteria for this point in historical development.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Arright, I don't know if there was a thread like this before, but if there was, I didn't see it. Anyway, I just want to ask how long socialism will last before communism. Does it vary on the country, would it have to be longer in the U.S. for example?It depends of the circumstances. If workers ran society and there was a threat from some kind of organized resistance by supporters of the capitalists or from a region where capitalism remained intact, then to prevent being attacked or having worker-run production facilities or worker communities bombed by individual reactionaries or something, then people might organize some sort of armed defense. However, with the ongoing threat gone, why would workers still want to stand out all night patrolling streets or building military equipment. So the "worker's militia" could be disbanded as soon as workers did not feel that there was a threat. In Egypt this happened as regime-supporting thugs and police would go into neighborhoods and terrorize people - so communities set up road blocks for each neighborhood and tried to physically prevent the thugs from coming in. If the state was smashed and the old thugs from the regime no longer a regular threat - who in their right mind would stand out in the street all night checking on people driving through?

The same thing with policing - people often ask, well how would you deal with a serial killer or someone with sever anti-social mental problems, how would you make sure that people were protected if there were no police. Leaving aside the fact that only very very rarely do police actually apprehend someone in the process of these kinds of crimes and therefore aint much of a "defense". If there was a real serial killer going around, then people in that community would undoubtedly set up some kind of system to protect themselves - maybe not in the form of "police" but something. THis something would only need to exist while there was a reason for it.

I'd argue that it's even the same for democratic institutions that workers would set up - at first there'd have to be a ton of coordinating and decision-making by all workers. How do we want to rebuild our communities in ways that suit our needs, what resources should go where, etc. But after a while when communities have been rebuilt so that everyone has easy access to necessities and wants like medical facilities, or entertainment, or transportation, then there'd be much less coordination that was needed and so these democratic bodies would have to meet less or not at all.

Class societies with a minority ruling class always need to reinforce their power and they create institutions to protect themselves and their order of society. Initially workers too will need to protect their democracy and control of production, but because they don't need to oppress other classes in order to do this, because they would be able to start to bring everyone into the working class and therefore eliminate class divisions altogether. With class divisions gone, there is no need for a state to enforce the will of one class over the whole of society.

[Dogs On Acid]

Until the social division of labour is transcended.

This.

Otherwise it is a completely hypothetical question and thus irrelevant.

[Thirsty Crow]

Until the social division of labour is transcended.
I should explain myself better.
By "socialism", I do not understand a specific regime in a single country or a bloc. I consider socialism a global affair. Also, I do not consider the existence of the market and capital as possibilities in socialism. Therefore, I consider it necessary to renumerate workers', who have by then ceased to represent a class (socialism is classless and stateless), on the basis of labour time, with the continuing tendency worldwide towards the disintegration of the social division of labour and the shortening of the necessary labour time/increased productivity.

[Kadir Ateş]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/images/icons/icon1.gif How long should socialism last?


Couple of days max. There's something about capital accumulation that really gets me going.

[Aurora]

In Critique of the Gotha Program Marx talks about the main conditions necessary for moving beyond the lower phase of socialism into the higher.

"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and with it also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished, after labor has become not only a livelihood but life's prime want, after the productive forces have increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly--only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois law be left behind in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"

[Zanthorus]

Until the heat death of the universe if at all possible.

[gendoikari]

Until the heat death of the universe if at all possible.

You don't want to see a communist utopia?

anyway both socialism and capitalism have until the complete robotization of the workforce is possible. after that either system will be on shaky ground as true communism begins to cry out for the light of day from under the ruble of the old system.

[Rooster]

Socialism and communism are not distinct modes of production. The workers control the means of production in both socialism and communism. They are just different names for each other.

[Rafiq]

I don't know, maybe never, maybe forever.

[syndicat]

a real socialism begins with worker power over production, dismantling of class subordination and of the state. "higher phase of communism" is pure speculation. no way to know what this would mean.

[Aurora]

You don't want to see a communist utopia?

I believe Zanthorus is making a point by using Marx and Engels usage of communism and socialism as synonyms. The differentiation of socialism as meaning the lower phase of communist society and communism the higher seems to originate with Lenin if not some other Bolshevik.
I think Lenin made a mistake with this as it creates different terminology from Marx and later communists which is needlessly confusing(which was probably the opposite of his intention) and it draws too much of a distinction between the different phases of communism.