One thing thats been on my mind.

[StoneFrog]

For me there seems to be a gap between capitalism and communism, in a social sense. This is in regard to the proletariat mentality under capitalism and the mentality that is needed for communism. With capitalism a social norm of hyped up individualism has been created, this is to incite more consumption of products to keep capitalism a float; as well as to keep capitalism as "the only option". With communism there is a need for the masses to hold a collective mentality and i am worried about this gap; how long would it take for this effect to change?

This brought me to the question maybe there is another stage between capitalism and communism, one that starts to bridge the gap between this hyped up individualism and collectivism. This if true, may look like something of state capitalism, or some other collective capitalism.

Am i just being pessimistic?

One answer to this i've heard is that the revolution will create a change in the mentality of the proletariat to create a mentality more suited for the development of communism. The thing i have wrong with this concept is that, mentality in revolution can fade when there is no one to fight. That collective struggle of the revolution will it truly undo the decades of capitalist impregnation of individualism?

[piet11111]

The transition phase you are talking about is called socialism.

[Broletariat]

For me there seems to be a gap between capitalism and communism, in a social sense. This is in regard to the proletariat mentality under capitalism and the mentality that is needed for communism. With capitalism a social norm of hyped up individualism has been created, this is to incite more consumption of products to keep capitalism a float; as well as to keep capitalism as "the only option". With communism there is a need for the masses to hold a collective mentality and i am worried about this gap; how long would it take for this effect to change?

This brought me to the question maybe there is another stage between capitalism and communism, one that starts to bridge the gap between this hyped up individualism and collectivism. This if true, may look like something of state capitalism, or some other collective capitalism.

Am i just being pessimistic?

One answer to this i've heard is that the revolution will create a change in the mentality of the proletariat to create a mentality more suited for the development of communism. The thing i have wrong with this concept is that, mentality in revolution can fade when there is no one to fight. That collective struggle of the revolution will it truly undo the decades of capitalist impregnation of individualism?

I don't see how "individualism" is incompatible with communism at all.


The transition phase you are talking about is called socialism.

So what makes this mode of production different from communism and different from capitalism? Or is it not a mode of production at all? If so, why compare it to two different modes of production at all?

[Astarte]

For me there seems to be a gap between capitalism and communism, in a social sense. This is in regard to the proletariat mentality under capitalism and the mentality that is needed for communism. With capitalism a social norm of hyped up individualism has been created, this is to incite more consumption of products to keep capitalism a float; as well as to keep capitalism as "the only option". With communism there is a need for the masses to hold a collective mentality and i am worried about this gap; how long would it take for this effect to change?

This brought me to the question maybe there is another stage between capitalism and communism, one that starts to bridge the gap between this hyped up individualism and collectivism. This if true, may look like something of state capitalism, or some other collective capitalism.

Am i just being pessimistic?

One answer to this i've heard is that the revolution will create a change in the mentality of the proletariat to create a mentality more suited for the development of communism. The thing i have wrong with this concept is that, mentality in revolution can fade when there is no one to fight. That collective struggle of the revolution will it truly undo the decades of capitalist impregnation of individualism?

What you are asking basically is, is "1984" possible. Is there an intermediate "phase" between capitalism and socialism-->communism. Is there a phase that consists of essentially a bureaucratic collectivist state of which Stalinism was just a kind of prototype birth-pang.

I really don't know, but I have thought about this too - I think that is why we need to study the USSR and the PRC so closely.

At any rate, it would really suck if that was the case.

[citizen of industry]

Say a revolution happened in our time. If society determines consciousness, we would undoubtedly hold on to our mentality, having been raised in capitalist society. On the other hand, we would have created a new society, one without the economic contradictions, inequality, disparity etc. The consciousness of future generations would reproduce this new society, the new economic relations, having been raised in it, and would not have the same tendency for greed, individualism, etc.

So we would be the stage between capitalism and communism, and our children would reflect the communist society. I imagine it would be a very short process, over one generation.

The problem with the USSR and PRC, IMHO, is that after the revolution they were not in sound economic shape; they reproduced new kinds of societies, but not ones without economic disparity and inequality. For a revolution to be successful over the long run, I think a) it has to be global, or b) at the very least in a developed country/group of countries like the US, EU that will be economically stable and are easily able to fend off reaction. Otherwise it amounts to a holding action, waiting for revolutions elsewhere while being an island in a hostile capitalist world, and falling far short of communism.

[piet11111]

I don't see how "individualism" is incompatible with communism at all.



So what makes this mode of production different from communism and different from capitalism? Or is it not a mode of production at all? If so, why compare it to two different modes of production at all?

Socialism is the transition phase where capitalist economy is transformed into a communist one.
Because of the transition we will still need to resort to limited market mechanics in the form of money or labor-vouches but without the profit motif.
While the transition is taking place we would need to expand the productive forces (think of medicine food agricultural equipment etc etc) to ensure that the rest of the world will be brought to the highest possible productive levels.
Meanwhile we start to disassemble the old capitalist power-structures of the state and replacing them with our own until we can get rid of those as well.

With communism in place we have such productive capacity that we would probably have a 20 hour work week (if not less) and we can spend our time doing things we love.
After all higher productivity means less hours work for the same results.

[Rooster]

Socialism is the transition phase where capitalist economy is transformed into a communist one.
Because of the transition we will still need to resort to limited market mechanics in the form of money or labor-vouches but without the profit motif.
While the transition is taking place we would need to expand the productive forces (think of medicine food agricultural equipment etc etc) to ensure that the rest of the world will be brought to the highest possible productive levels.
Meanwhile we start to disassemble the old capitalist power-structures of the state and replacing them with our own until we can get rid of those as well.

With communism in place we have such productive capacity that we would probably have a 20 hour work week (if not less) and we can spend our time doing things we love.
After all higher productivity means less hours work for the same results.

That's the DotP and the transitional phase isn't some definite gap between the dismantling of capitalism to build communism as that implies that you can just reform society. The transition from capitalist relations to socialist relations (or the lower phase of communism) should happen basically happen as fast as the revolution spreads, because that's the point of the revolution.

[piet11111]

"The first phase of communism, therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences in wealth will still persist, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible because it will be impossible to seize the means of production – the factories, machines, land, etc. – and make them private property.... Marx shows the course of development of communist society....which [firstly] consists in the distribution of consumer goods "according to the amount of labor performed" (and not [yet] according to needs)."
"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."


Lenin in state and revolution chapter 5 explains it better then i could.

Reform is clearly not an option because the capitalists would not give up power and wealth without revolution and the dotp.

[Broletariat]

in the form of money

This is all I needed to see, money implies Capitalism and the accumulation of Capital.

[manic expression]

This is all I needed to see, money implies Capitalism and the accumulation of Capital.
No, it doesn't. For starters, currency has existed in plenty of non-capitalist societies (societies without a bourgeoisie, either). Second, money just signifies a certain amount of value...we can't be rid of that until scarcity itself is eliminated, and that won't be part of the transition period. Unless you're all for a barter system in which you exchange a certain number of belt buckles (or whatever) for a movie ticket, I don't think it's possible to get rid of money completely in the transition period.

Now if you're talking classless society itself, of course...but that's another thing altogether.

[Broletariat]

No, it doesn't. For starters, currency has existed in plenty of non-capitalist societies (societies without a bourgeoisie, either).


I will concede this point, but unless you're talking about a regression of society as such, money, and value relations MUST go.


Second, money just signifies a certain amount of value...we can't be rid of that until scarcity itself is eliminated, and that won't be part of the transition period.

Here it strikes me that you have either, never read Das Kapital, or failed to understand what Marx meant by Value. For Marx, Value is a social relationship by which private labour becomes social. Generalised production of Value is the cornerstone of Capitalism.



Unless you're all for a barter system in which you exchange a certain number of belt buckles (or whatever) for a movie ticket, I don't think it's possible to get rid of money completely in the transition period.


Here I am especially struck by the fact that you're not understanding my criticism of the whole keeping the money thing. Money is simply the external expression of value which is implicit within bartering. They amount to one and the same thing, a value relationship. Which, the entire point of Communism is to abolish value relationships.


Now if you're talking classless society itself, of course...but that's another thing altogether.

Hmm?

[piet11111]

Money would only serve as a temporary exchange mechanism you cant buy means of production your not allowed to hire people to work for you and make a profit over their backs nor can you put it in a bank and collect interest.

You work and you get X amount of money that you can exchange for what you want.

When material abundance is achieved we can abolish this system.

[Broletariat]

Money would only serve as a temporary exchange mechanism you cant buy means of production your not allowed to hire people to work for you and make a profit over their backs nor can you put it in a bank and collect interest.

You work and you get X amount of money that you can exchange for what you want.

When material abundance is achieved we can abolish this system.

Alright we're just having a misunderstanding because you persist in using the word "money."

"Money," implies circulation.... which your system has done away with I assume.

[StoneFrog]

I just realized that, maybe capitalism itself will bring about these change in mentality. With its descending days, i would think that the ruling class would reform to a degree and collectivize; since the machine which is capitalism would be to a point of morbid decay, the bourgeoisie would be trying to patch it up. Obviously they're going to do it in such a way as to preserve capitalism, but in this hour of desperation those attempts of patching the old machine, up they'll make the foundations in which the proletariat would be able to build their new society.

So such things as nationalizing private industry, which we can already see how its going to happen, through "bailouts" of private companies. Would this not get to the point where the state will have no option but to start to nationalize those companies.

One thing still concerns me, we have gone through a recession and another one is predicted, yet i have seen few examples of proletariat unity. Such things as community councils like that which happened in Russia, or other places. As far as i can see the working class are still at the point of being mesmerized at the theater of consumerism.

[Broletariat]

I just realized that, maybe capitalism itself will bring about these change in mentality. With its descending days, i would think that the ruling class would reform to a degree and collectivize; since the machine which is capitalism would be to a point of morbid decay, the bourgeoisie would be trying to patch it up. Obviously they're going to do it in such a way as to preserve capitalism, but in this hour of desperation those attempts of patching the old machine, up they'll make the foundations in which the proletariat would be able to build their new society.

So such things as nationalizing private industry, which we can already see how its going to happen, through "bailouts" of private companies. Would this not get to the point where the state will have no option but to start to nationalize those companies.

One thing still concerns me, we have gone through a recession and another one is predicted, yet i have seen few examples of proletariat unity. Such things as community councils like that which happened in Russia, or other places. As far as i can see the working class are still at the point of being mesmerized at the theater of consumerism.


argleblargle

Why on earth are you under the impression that "individualism" is at all at odds with Communism at all? This seriously baffles me to no end.

Communism is the end result of the working class pursuing their material interests, where does any sort of philosophical ideology come into play?

[¿Que?]

argleblargle

Why on earth are you under the impression that "individualism" is at all at odds with Communism at all? This seriously baffles me to no end.

Communism is the end result of the working class pursuing their material interests, where does any sort of philosophical ideology come into play?
Maybe because in order for a revolution to succeed, the working class must not seek their own individual material interests, but their material interests as a class?

[Desperado]

One answer to this i've heard is that the revolution will create a change in the mentality of the proletariat to create a mentality more suited for the development of communism.

You've got it the wrong way around. This change in mentality is what causes and ultimately is revolution, not the result of revolution. The only way we may reach communism is through the proletariat - they emancipate themselves, or they are not emancipated at all.

And so the question is whether the proletariat will ever reach this class consciousness, and how, and what "our" job is (if any) in the process. Most seem to agree (and history suggests) that it will occur (or at least culminate) in a period of capitalist crisis, in which the proletariat realise their potential as a class and the illusions of the past break down. I don't know about the other translations, but the Welsh Internationale says of the clearing of the mist of ages, which I think is very apt.

[Impulse97]

This is all I needed to see, money implies Capitalism and the accumulation of Capital.

I have not yet delved into the terrorfyingness that is Das Kapital, enlighten me as to how and why this implies capitalism. If say, everyone received $1 per hour worked regardless of the job, plus certain bonuses per hour in addition to the base rate to account for difficulty, disgustingness, skill level etc. etc. and no exploitation occurs. Combined with a strong progressive tax system and all services/products for purchase where priced based on the total labor used to produce them(including the labor used to produce the parts of certain products).

How does this equate Capitalism? Isn't the mere fact that person to person exploitation has been done away with along with the abolishment of private property mean we have moved beyond capitalism? I always assumed both of those are key, nay required, to have capitalism. Is what I have stated in the above paragraph communism? No, but is it also not Capitalism?


Alright we're just having a misunderstanding because you persist in using the word "money."

"Money," implies circulation.... which your system has done away with I assume.

How does circulation = capitalism?


Maybe because in order for a revolution to succeed, the working class must not seek their own individual material interests, but their material interests as a class?

But, aren't there own individual material interests one and the same as those of their class?

[L.A.P.]

But, aren't there own individual material interests one and the same as those of their class?

I second this question.

[¿Que?]

But, aren't there own individual material interests one and the same as those of their class?
I don't think you can equate the interests, material or otherwise, of any individual proletariat to those of the class as a whole.

In any case, we can find good theory on this here:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01d.htm

Individualism is important in communism. Indeed, for the proletariat, communism is the only path to true individuality. Capitalist exploitation and its subsequent alienation of workers is the real barrier to real individuality.

Anyway, scuze me as I wipa dis egg offa my face...

[Broletariat]

Maybe because in order for a revolution to succeed, the working class must not seek their own individual material interests, but their material interests as a class?

Their individual material interests are irrelevant, the class as a whole has the interests of communism. Sure the bourgeoise might buy off a scab or so, but for the CLASS their interest is in Communism.


I have not yet delved into the terrorfyingness that is Das Kapital, enlighten me as to how and why this implies capitalism.


Marx defines Capitalism as generalised commodity production. Money is merely an external expression of the fact that there is generalised commodity production.


If say, everyone received $1 per hour worked regardless of the job, plus certain bonuses per hour in addition to the base rate to account for difficulty, disgustingness, skill level etc. etc. and no exploitation occurs. Combined with a strong progressive tax system and all services/products for purchase where priced based on the total labor used to produce them(including the labor used to produce the parts of certain products).

How does this equate Capitalism? Isn't the mere fact that person to person exploitation has been done away with along with the abolishment of private property mean we have moved beyond capitalism? I always assumed both of those are key, nay required, to have capitalism. Is what I have stated in the above paragraph communism? No, but is it also not Capitalism?

All of the above equates to Capitalism as Marxists understand it. It's a "friendlier" Capitalism if you will, but it's Capitalism nonetheless.




How does circulation = capitalism?

If there was a need for circulation it would imply isolated sphere of production producing for private interest (capitalism)




But, aren't there own individual material interests one and the same as those of their class?


I second this question.

The whole point, is that as a class, considered as a whole, they have a united material interest in the abolition of value.