State capitalism vs Socialism vs Communism

[MustCrushCapitalism]

This is an issue that really does intrigue me a bit... where exactly the lines are. Socialism as a transitional stage... etc. Abolition of the state is the line between Socialism and Communism, from what I understand?

Can someone here better explain the line between State Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism?

[socialistjustin]

I want to test out my knowledge here. State Capitalism is where the profit extracted from your labor goes to the state. The means of production is held by the state, not the workers.


Communism and socialism both have the workers controlling the means of production so they're the same as far as that is concerned. Communism is stateless and moneyless though and I suppose socialism could still use money and have states.


Really I'm glad you asked because my understanding of communism and socialism and the lines between them aren't that good.

[SHORAS]

I am not trying to antagonize either of you but why do you both identify with a specific tendency given your fundamental questions and lack of understanding shown here. Do a lot of people on revleft pick a tendency somewhat arbitrarily then go from there?

[Manic Impressive]

Do a lot of people on revleft pick a tendency somewhat arbitrarily then go from there?
Yes they do. Revleft is a lot like prison, it's a scary place if you don't know how to act. And people will notice if you're not down with the lingo or the way you carry yourself. They feel that in order to protect themselves they need to be affiliated with one of the gangs so the stronger members will protect them. But for what price?

@socialist Justin you're in the libetarian socialist gang so you say that there is no difference between socialism and communism and Marx used the phrases interchangeably. The USSR was always state capitalist

@Mustcrushcapitalism you're in the Marxist-Leninist gang so you say that the USSR was never state capitalist and that it was a shining example of socialism.

[socialistjustin]

Where am I going wrong? Is state capitalism not what I pointed it out to be?

Anyways, I haven't read anything on theory in a long time. The last thing I was reading about was Parecon and I liked it and that theory would certainly fall under libertarian socialism. All I know is that I want society where the workers control the means of production and we make decisions democratically. As far as the little things, I don't really care.

[SHORAS]

Yes they do. Revleft is a lot like prison, it's a scary place if you don't know how to act. And people will notice if you're not down with the lingo or the way you carry yourself. They feel that in order to protect themselves they need to be affiliated with one of the gangs so the stronger members will protect them. But for what price?

:D:D:D

Nice analogy

[Caj]

State capitalism is an economic system in which the state acts as the sole capitalist and exploits the workers by extracting surplus value. Engels, in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, believed this would be the final stage of capitalist development. Socialism is workers control and democratic management of the means of production and nothing more. Communism is just a form of socialism with no states, classes, markets, or currency.

[Rooster]

I completely disagree that socialism and communism are different modes of production and should be classes differently. It's illogical to call socialism a transitional stage using Marx's language and theory of it. You just can't shoe horn it into that frame work. Engels did think that state-capitalism was the highest stage of capitalism, which meant that in his eyes it was a very unstable stage which required a little push to make it into socialism or it would degenerate into regular capitalism. I'm trying to remember sources here but I think the general thing about state capitalism is that it would be very hard for a regular capitalist society to approach that stage organically.

[Comrade Samuel]

What are some examples of countries that have adopted state capitalism? Overall is this a successful system?

[Red Noob]

State capitalism is an economic system in which the state acts as the sole capitalist and exploits the workers by extracting surplus value. Engels, in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, believed this would be the final stage of capitalist development. Socialism is workers control and democratic management of the means of production and nothing more. Communism is just a form of socialism with no states, classes, markets, or currency.

But then, wouldn't Socialism come before State capitalism? I mean if Socialism is merely the means of production in the hands of the workers, then Unions could easily be what bring about Socialism. Unions already exist and in some areas have great influence. Is seems like this definition of Socialism parallels to worker counsels.

Unless I'm misunderstanding the point here. :confused:

[Manic Impressive]

There is absolutely no difference between socialism and communism. Both are a stateless and moneyless society where the means of production are commonly owned. Unless you are a Marxist-Leninist or another kind of capitalist then socialism is capitalism.

[Art Vandelay]

@socialist Justin you're in the libetarian socialist gang so you say that there is no difference between socialism and communism and Marx used the phrases interchangeably. The USSR was always state capitalist


I always thought Marx used the terms the lower and higher phase of communism:confused: Am I wrong here?

[Caj]

I always thought Marx used the terms the lower and higher phase of communism:confused: Am I wrong here?

No. He introduced those concepts in (I think) The Critique of the Gotha Programme. Bakunin and the collectivists had a similar two-phase system, the first of which established a communal market and maintained remuneration for labor ("to each according to his contribution"). This phase, according to the collectivists, was to be succeeded by a system without markets or currency -- what Marx termed pure communism or the higher phase of communism.


There is absolutely no difference between socialism and communism. Both are a stateless and moneyless society where the means of production are commonly owned. Unless you are a Marxist-Leninist or another kind of capitalist then socialism is capitalism.

I think it is important to make the distinction since the classical Marxists (including Marx himself) distinguished between two phases of communism. The higher phase of communism is the system that is moneyless and is what is usually referred to as communism today.


What are some examples of countries that have adopted state capitalism? Overall is this a successful system?

Cuba, USSR, Vietnam, Laos, et cetera -- really all of the countries that are conventionally referred to as "Communist". It is a more successful system than market capitalism for the workers, but, like market capitalism, it still relies on their exploitation and should be rejected in favor of legitimate socialism (i.e., workers democratic management and control of the means of production).


But then, wouldn't Socialism come before State capitalism? I mean if Socialism is merely the means of production in the hands of the workers, then Unions could easily be what bring about Socialism. Unions already exist and in some areas have great influence. Is seems like this definition of Socialism parallels to worker counsels.

I'm a little confused as to what you are asking. State capitalism is still capitalism and wouldn't emerge after socialism, but rather before it as the final stage of capitalist development (according to Engels). And yes, that definition of socialism does correspond to workers' councils, because workers' councils are the basis of socialism.

[Manic Impressive]

I always thought Marx used the terms the lower and higher phase of communism:confused: Am I wrong here?
yeah he did use them as Anarchy! points out but he never ever called it socialism and in fact called socialism and communism the same thing. If anything socialism is more of a blanket term encompassing some thoughts which were not Marxist i.e. bourgeois socialism.


I think it is important to make the distinction since the classical Marxists (including Marx himself) distinguished between two phases of communism. The higher phase of communism is the system that is moneyless and is what is usually referred to as communism today.

yeah sure but Marx never called that socialism. The change seemed to come from Lenin and really became enshrined in doctrine under Stalin as an excuse as to why they had not succeeded. Personally I don't think we should be accepting Stalin's definition of anything over Marx's. Especially as a transitional stage or the lower stage if you like is becoming decreasingly less necessary in modern society.

[Caj]

socialism is more of a blanket term encompassing some thoughts which were not Marxist i.e. bourgeois socialism.

This is another reason why I believe we should make the distinction between socialism and communism. Parecon-ists, for example, are certainly socialists, but they are not communists as it is today understood, i.e., they advocate the existence of markets and remuneration of labor (currency).


yeah sure but Marx never called that socialism. The change seemed to come from Lenin and really became enshrined in doctrine under Stalin as an excuse as to why they had not succeeded. Personally I don't think we should be accepting Stalin's definition of anything over Marx's.

But since the word "communism" is today usually understood as Marx's higher-phase of communism, I think it would make more sense to refer to Marx's lower-phase of communism as socialism.


a transitional stage or the lower stage if you like is becoming decreasingly less necessary in modern society.

I'm curious as to why you believe so.

[Red Noob]

I'm a little confused as to what you are asking. State capitalism is still capitalism and wouldn't emerge after socialism, but rather before it as the final stage of capitalist development (according to Engels). And yes, that definition of socialism does correspond to workers' councils, because workers' councils are the basis of socialism.

Well I guess my question was 'what about Capitalism with unions/worker's councils?' I guess the answer is the social democratic system.

[Caj]

Well I guess my question was 'what about Capitalism with unions/worker's councils?' I guess the answer is the social democratic system.

You mean like workers' councils within a free market system? That sounds like Mutualism.

[Manic Impressive]

This is another reason why I believe we should make the distinction between socialism and communism. Parecon-ists, for example, are certainly socialists, but they are not communists as it is today understood, i.e., they advocate the existence of markets and remuneration of labor (currency).

But since the word "communism" is today usually understood as Marx's higher-phase of communism, I think it would make more sense to refer to Marx's lower-phase of communism as socialism.
I see myself as somewhat of a classical Marxist, so I tend to favour Marx's definitions. I also don't see why we should accept a definition from an opposing ideology just because it may be more popular. I mean if that were the case we might as well redefine socialism as social democracy or as American liberalism, where does it stop? I'll stick to Marx's definitions and if we need to talk about the lower phase or a transitional phase we can speak of it as such and not reappropriate a word with a different meaning to fill it's place.


I'm curious as to why you believe so.
Our production output is high enough and our organizational skill is high enough that only a very short transitional period is needed. Maybe a year or two max for people to set up workers councils and distribute resources on a needs basis. This obviously wasn't as easily done in Marx's day as capitalism was still maturing so a transitional phase was needed in order to reach a level of production which could satisfy the needs of the people.

[Caj]

I also don't see why we should accept a definition from an opposing ideology just because it may be more popular. I mean if that were the case we might as well redefine socialism as social democracy or as American liberalism, where does it stop?

Good point, but I think that the second we begin equating socialism with communism, it just leads to confusion regarding distinguishing those who advocate higher-phase/pure communism and those that advocate a non-transitional socialist system with markets, remuneration, et cetera. We can't refer to the latter as "lower-phase communists" because that would further imply that they advocate some sort of higher-phase of communism when they in fact don't. I really don't think it would be fruitful for the communication of leftist ideas to begin referring to all socialists as communists -- it would simply generate more confusion.


Our production output is high enough and our organizational skill is high enough that only a very short transitional period is needed. Maybe a year or two max for people to set up workers councils and distribute resources on a needs basis. This obviously wasn't as easily done in Marx's day as capitalism was still maturing so a transitional phase was needed in order to reach a level of production which could satisfy the needs of the people.

Yes, but there is also the issue of overcoming the worker-mentality inherited from bourgeois society that may still require a transitory period of considerable duration before (pure) communism can be established. I could be wrong, but from what I've read it seems that the workers had a higher degree of class consciousness (and thus a weaker worker-mentality) in Marx's time than today when Marxism and radical leftism in general are widely considered "failed ideologies". This leads me to believe that by the time a revolution occurs, it may take a longer amount of time for the world's ex-proletarians to adjust to the new socialistic system than they would have had a revolution occurred in Marx's time.

[Manic Impressive]

Good point, but I think that the second we begin equating socialism with communism, it just leads to confusion regarding distinguishing those who advocate higher-phase/pure communism and those that advocate a non-transitional socialist system with markets, remuneration, et cetera. We can't refer to the latter as "lower-phase communists" because that would further imply that they advocate some sort of higher-phase of communism when they in fact don't. I really don't think it would be fruitful for the communication of leftist ideas to begin referring to all socialists as communists -- it would simply generate more confusion.
I get what you're saying and I don't think we can resolve this. Marxist-Leninists will keep on calling capitalism socialism and I'll keep saying it isn't :p


Yes, but there is also the issue of overcoming the worker-mentality inherited from bourgeois society that may still require a transitory period of considerable duration before (pure) communism can be established. I could be wrong, but from what I've read it seems that the workers had a higher degree of class consciousness (and thus a weaker worker-mentality) in Marx's time than today when Marxism and radical leftism in general are widely considered "failed ideologies". This leads me to believe that by the time a revolution occurs, it may take a longer amount of time for the world's ex-proletarians to adjust to the new socialistic system than they would have had a revolution occurred in Marx's time.
In order for the working class to emancipate themselves a majority of the class must want a revolution and thus be class concious. If the working class are not class concious and a small group of professional revolutionaries has a revolution in the name of the class (a vanguard) then a transitional stage would be necessary.
(I don't know enough about levels of class conciousness in the 19th century to make an objective comparison between then and now.)

[Caj]

Marxist-Leninists will keep on calling capitalism socialism and I'll keep saying it isn't :p

As will I. :D


In order for the working class to emancipate themselves a majority of the class must want a revolution and thus be class concious.

Yes, I know, but I think that if the workers haven't been class conscious to any degree for any considerable amount of time, a transitory stage may be necessary for a longer amount of time in order that the workers can overcome the remaining aspects of worker-mentality inherited from bourgeois society. For example, remuneration for labor ("to each according to his contribution") may present itself as necessary for a time after the revolution until the workers overcome the idea of wages inherited from bourgeois society.