Transition to Socialism?

[Stirnerist]

I just wanted to ask a couple of questions about socialism, specifically of the explicitly Marxist variety. Firstly, if you were called upon to colonise an undiscovered country, would you go straight to communism, or have a transition period of state socialism or outright capitalism first? Secondly, if you lived in a capitalist society and a revolution occurred, bringing about state socialism, how would you want society to decide when the transition period was over and full-blown communism could be enacted?

Maybe these are personal opinion or maybe they're more theoretical, either way I'd be interested to know. Of course this assumes that you generally accept a simple Marxist model of politics rather than something like Permanent Revolution (although if you support PR I'd be interested to hear where you think it would differ).

[Rooster]

I just wanted to ask a couple of questions about socialism, specifically of the explicitly Marxist variety.

Okay.


Firstly, if you were called upon to colonise an undiscovered country, would you go straight to communism, or have a transition period of state socialism or outright capitalism first?

I don't really think this makes sense. We don't live in imaginary worlds where there are undiscovered countries. But if I were to hazard a guess, then it would depend on the productive capacities available and if there was already a socialist/communist revolution in some developed place. If that was the case then the relation to the means of production would be socialist. Not transitionary from capitalism to socialism and not capitalist. And I disagree with the idea of state socialism.


Secondly, if you lived in a capitalist society and a revolution occurred, bringing about state socialism, how would you want society to decide when the transition period was over and full-blown communism could be enacted?

I would try my best to make sure that no state took the power away from the proletariat. Full blown communism happens when the means of production are being held in common, not being held by a state or a vanguard for the proletariat. Socialism and communism is the same thing, just different words. So full blown whatever would begin when the revolution happens and the means of production are being held by a free association of people.


Maybe these are personal opinion or maybe they're more theoretical, either way I'd be interested to know. Of course this assumes that you generally accept a simple Marxist model of politics rather than something like Permanent Revolution (although if you support PR I'd be interested to hear where you think it would differ).

What's this simple marxist model?

[Stirnerist]

Maybe "state socialism" was too strong. I meant a communist system but with vestiges of private property remaining like differential wages. I'm afraid a lot of this seems to have been covered already in the discussion thread "Distinction between communism and socialism"! I just got here.

From that thread I see the "State" of whatever kind it is is expected to wither away at the end of the transition period. I think I have a better understanding of this now, but I'm still interested in the "colonisation" question. I'm sure you see the value of thought experiments?

[Sputnik_1]

by simple model i'm guessing you mean the fact that there was no precise model, cause it's impossible to predict how exactly would a socialist society develop. If i'm not mistaken marx, nonetheless he provided a detailed analysis of captalistic system, did't try to give any precise indications on how would look like the communist one.

[Blake's Baby]

OK; I'll bite. As a marxist, I defend the following propositions and positions:

'There is no state socialism, only state capitalism' said Wilhelm Leibknecht in 1890, and I find no reason to disagree with him on that one. A state is an organ of class rule. As socialism is the abolition of class relations, there can be no 'socialist state'. How can you have a state with no classes?

Socialism is worldwide, it cannot be set up in one island, undiscovered or not.

The revolution in a capitalist country would, rather, be a revolution in a capitalist world. Until capitalism is abolished, then the revolution is not over. Thus, the Russian Revolution of 1917 can be said to not be over yet, as capitalism has not been defeated worldwide (read, at last count, anywhere in the world; those areas where it was have since succumbed to counter-revolution).

If a revolution 'occurred' in my corner of the capitalist world, and I hadn't been involved in it, I would be very peturbed, because I would think that what had in fact occurred was that a gaggle of putschists had staged a military coup. The revolution is the action of the working class, if not exactly as a whole, at the very least en masse. In any large or large-ish industrialised country like the USA, UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, China, Russia, Hungary, Japan, Mexico or wherever, millions of workers will be out on the streets. Things may be a little different in Luxemburg or Djibouti or Belize, somewhere where populations are smaller and the working class isn't maybe so concentrated, but even so, tens and hundreds of millions of workers will make the revolution, not a few hundred or a few thousand 'revolutionaries'.

The lower stage of communism is a period when production is being changed from production for profit to production for the satisfaction of human needs and desires. As long as scarcity exists, we won't be in a position to impliment the idea that each provides according to their ability, and is provided for, from the common store, according to need. There may need to be a transitionary stage where a system of community-based resource allocation is necessary. In this case I'd advocate rationing (by need) rather than work-time vouchers (rationing by work) or money (rationing by access to capital) as the distribution system. This does begin to look a little like a 'transitional state'. But I don't really see that this can be avoided, as I don't think we can just abolish capitalism, re-organise production, and move straight to communism, upon the instant (I'd obviously prefer it if we could).

I suspect the main problem facing post-revolutionary humanity would be the likelihood that the outgoing ruling class would have done its best to destroy everything - to kill millions, to destroy cities, infrastructure, productive capacity - during the world civil war.

It's possible, theoretically, for capitalism's current productive capacity to feed everyone in the world, provide us all with decent water and health care and an education system. 'In theory, capitalism works' one might say. In practice it doesn't, and it can't. But socialism - the organisation of production for the benefit of all - can overleap the problems capitalism is unable to overcome. So if we woke up in a socialist world tomorrowe and there had been no devastating civil war, we could reach the higher stage of communism in a very short time - maybe, as little as 2 years before we had built all the necessary infrastructure (sewerage systems, roads and railways, power stations, hospitals, decent housing and all the rest). This would require all production to be geared to solving existing problems, but it's do-able.

However, I really don't see that happening because as I say of the improbability of the capitalists quitting the stage without wrecking everything. I think we will be dealing with the fallout (figuratively and I'm afraid literally) of the civil war for decades. I hope not centuries.

[thriller]

If I came across an undiscovered colony/country/island/whatever, I would like to leave it alone and exclude human interaction so there could be one place that didn't have human influence/pollution. But if I had to colonize or whatever, this is what I'd do. If there was currently a workers "state" or workers struggle that was very strong, I'd want to try to implement those ideas as much as possible, whatever they are. If there was no struggles else where, I'm not sure. Maybe capitalism first in order to create the required classes for socialism to exist.

[socialistjustin]

Socialism can't be implemented from above so I wouldn't want state socialism. I want a transitional period to actual communism, but a socialism that is run by the workers not the party.

[Rooster]

Maybe "state socialism" was too strong.

Fair enough. It seems to be a common misconception which I think stems partly from people lacking experience in the work place.


I meant a communist system but with vestiges of private property remaining like differential wages.

Marx talks about this in the Critique of the Gotha Program and uses it as a comparison between the lower stages of communism and the higher stages. At the lower end, you'd have differences based on physical differences such as people being able to work longer and harder. Then once the productive capacity has risen enough then it would be possible to have free access.


I'm afraid a lot of this seems to have been covered already in the discussion thread "Distinction between communism and socialism"! I just got here.

Believe it or not but this still crops up way too often.


From that thread I see the "State" of whatever kind it is is expected to wither away at the end of the transition period.

The only reason a state exists is because society is still divided by class (ie, relations to the means of production). As communists, our goal is to eliminate class and make such a class society impossible to come about again. This requires the removal of state. Either as a consequence of our direct action of seizing the economic outputs of society or directly dismantling the state with alternative forms of government (ie, the soviets).


I think I have a better understanding of this now, but I'm still interested in the "colonisation" question. I'm sure you see the value of thought experiments?

Seeing how communism requires already advanced productive forces and a proletariat to remove classes, then I don't think the idea importing or creating a communist society from scratch would be possible.