What would we call actual National Socialism

[Belleraphone]

We know that in Germany, Hitler pretended to be a "national socialist." But even though he persecuted minorities, even the Aryan working class was not in control of the means of production. So I was wondering, what would we call it if a race in a country discriminates against other races and continues to undermine them, but they themselves are in control of the means of production.

[Ballyfornia]

Ethnic Socialism?

[Sasha]

Apartheid.
It can only be socialism if there is a classless nation free society, what you describe is very much a class based society

[Revolutionair]

Apartheid.what you describe is very much a class based society

This basically.
Socialism/communism is a classless and stateless society. When you have apartheid/capital/wage labor/state/money/markets, then you are living is a class society.

[Tim Cornelis]

Apartheid.
It can only be socialism if there is a classless nation free society, what you describe is very much a class based society

Apartheid is a specific form of institutionalised racism, and can in fact only be used to describe the South African form of racial segregation--it would thus not be an accurate description of National Socialism. Especially if you consider that National-Socialism does not want racial segregation within a country, but eradicate other races from their country.

[Sasha]

Yes you are right, remeber though apartheid is a dutch word, it does have wider meaning here than in English.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What about some years of Stalin's rule that were spread apart, but imagine this time put together? Combine overdosed "Soviet patriotism" (late 1941 to early 1942) with forced relocations of suspect national minorities (1944), ethnic discrimination against minorities within the state bureaucracies (late 40s and early 50s), etc.

[Fawkes]

So I was wondering, what would we call it if a race in a country discriminates against other races and continues to undermine them, but they themselves are in control of the means of production.
national socialism, I guess


Or you could call it what it really is: bullshit.

[Yuppie Grinder]

that would never happen in the real world
not the reality of class dynamics
irrelevant

[piet11111]

Apartheid.
It can only be socialism if there is a classless nation free society, what you describe is very much a class based society

I think the closest English word is segregation or separation.

[Blake's Baby]

that would never happen in the real world
not the reality of class dynamics
irrelevant

It did, though. It's sort of the Spartan system, where an ethnically-based elite lived an essentially communist lifestyle (there was no private property among the Spartan elite for instance, food was taken in mess-halls and land was alloted) but that group as whole was the ruling class of a brutal militaristic slave-based state something like a 'colonist state' in that it had subjegated a local agricultural population and essentially lived on their enforced tribute.

So Sparta was possibly the closest to an idea of 'ethnic socialism' though it wasn't socialist; just a demonstration that ruling classes don't have to exploit as individuals.

[The Insurrection]

It can only be socialism if there is a classless nation free society, what you describe is very much a class based society

Socialism isn't a classless society...

[Sasha]

Yes it is, the dictatorship of the proletariat requires the abolition of all other classes; social, cultural and burocratic.

[The Insurrection]

You're confusing socialism and communism.

If you are talking about socialism as the dictatorship of the proletariat, then you are talking about a transitional period from capitalism to communism, a period of history whereby class continues to exist and the state controls the economy (which is what socialism is). The process of aboliting class etc is allegedly supposed to happen during this period so that we create a classless society, i.e. communism.

Socialism does not advocate a "classless society", it advocates social (state) ownership of the means of production. This is what Marx and Lenin both talked about.

[Blake's Baby]

Whoa, hold it there Lenin-boy.

Marx at no point made a distinction between socialism and communism.

[The Insurrection]

Whoa, hold it there Lenin-boy.

Marx at no point made a distinction between socialism and communism.

Lenin-boy?

Erm, The Communist Manifesto?

[Nox]

National Syndicalism?

A nationalist and socialist society would, I think, be possible, but stupid.

[Blake's Baby]

Lenin-boy?

Erm, The Communist Manifesto?

Erm, the Telephone Directory?

Isn't random naming of books fun?

No, Marx doesn't make a distinction between socialism and communism, not even in the Manifesto.

Your serve (this is the place where you show that he does and prove me wrong).

[Nox]

I thought that:

Socialism = Workers Democracy
Communism = Stateless, classless society

and that Socialism always leads to Communism


Am I right or way off?

[Blake's Baby]

You're right if you're a Leninist. If you're any other sort of socialist (Marxist or Anarchist) then I think you're wrong. The Marxians of the SPGB and its companion-parties, the Left Communists, Luxemburgists, Council Communists, De Leonists and other non-Lenists in the Marxist tradition, and the entire Anarchist movement as far as I'm aware, reject this distinction.

EDIT: You two are both British? FFS, check the AF - http://www.afed.org.uk/ - or LibCom - http://libcom.org/forums - or SolFed - http://www.solfed.org.uk/ - and see if any of them espouse a Leninst notion of 'socialism as a transitional stage'.

[Nox]

You're right if you're a Leninist. If you're any other sort of socialist (Marxist or Anarchist) then I think you're wrong. The Marxians of the SPGB and its companion-parties, the Left Communists, Luxemburgists, Council Communists, De Leonists and other non-Lenists in the Marxist tradition, and the entire Anarchist movement as far as I'm aware, reject this distinction.

Yeah I totally reject it as a transitional stage, I just thought it had a different definition to Communism :)

[Azraella]

I always thought socialism was broad umbrella for a whole host of ideas and that while communism is socialism it's not the only form of it. I always thought socialism was any society that workers controlled the means of production. So say a mutualist community would technically be socialist.

[The Insurrection]

No, Marx doesn't make a distinction between socialism and communism, not even in the Manifesto.

I don't think you've read it very closely.


Your serve (this is the place where you show that he does and prove me wrong)."We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy. The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible."

Plus this, where he makes various distinctions between socialism(s) and communism: Socialist and Communist Literature (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm)


If you're any other sort of socialist (Marxist or Anarchist) then I think you're wrong. The Marxians of the SPGB and its companion-parties, the Left Communists, Luxemburgists, Council Communists, De Leonists and other non-Lenists in the Marxist tradition, and the entire Anarchist movement as far as I'm aware, reject this distinction.Bakunin didn't. That's why he wrote the pamphlet Stateless Socialism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/various/soc-anar.htm)

You're trying to make a political argument that Marx was distinct to Lenin and I don't think that's true. An orthodox understanding of Marx demonstrates clearly that Lenin and he had a lot in common. Not that I care. If you want to scrap over Marx's corpse with Leninists, that's up to you. Nevertheless, socialism and communism are two distinct ideas with different objectives.

[La Comédie Noire]

Authoritarian Capitalism has a nice ring to it.

[Blake's Baby]

I don't think you've read it very closely...

I don't think you've understood it very well.




"We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy. The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible."

Yes, this is the dictatorship of the proletariat. Where does he call it socialism again? Oh that's right, nowhere.


...Plus this, where he makes various distinctions between socialism(s) and communism: Socialist and Communist Literature (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm)



Socialist and Communist. Please explain how different types of literature relate to different phases of the revolution? Oh, that's right they don't.



...

You're trying to make a political argument that Marx was distinct to Lenin and I don't think that's true. An orthodox understanding of Marx demonstrates clearly that Lenin and he had a lot in common. Not that I care. If you want to scrap over Marx's corpse with Leninists, that's up to you. Nevertheless, socialism and communism are two distinct ideas with different objectives.

If you want to be a Leninist that's your business, but stop pretending you're an anarchist while you're doing it.

[ColonelCossack]

n divided by 0

Or the square root of -2

or tan90

ha ha this is fun

In short, we wouldn't, because its sort of a contradiction, methinks.

[The Insurrection]

IYes, this is the dictatorship of the proletariat. Where does he call it socialism again? Oh that's right, nowhere.

He doens't need to "call" it socialism for it to be socialism.

But OK, if socialism is not the state ownership of the economy, and Marx is not referring to socialism, what is the state ownership of the economy called and what was Marx referring to?


Socialist and Communist. Please explain how different types of literature relate to different phases of the revolution? Oh, that's right they don't.You seem to have confused yourself.

I'm not making an argument in defence of transitional socialism. I am simply making the argument that socialism does not advocate "classless" society, it advocates state ownership of the economy, which is what the dictatorship of the proletariat is and what Marx called for.


If you want to be a Leninist that's your business, but stop pretending you're an anarchist while you're doing it.I'm not the one making a defence of the dictatorship of the proletariat, you are.

[Blake's Baby]

You're making the equation between the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism. That makes you a Leninist. That's what seperates Leninists from all other Marxists.

'He doesn't call it socialism but it is socialism'... and yet, I asked you where Marx called the lower stage of communism 'socialism' and you... failed to provide an answer. So, I think we can agree, Marx doesn't refer to either the lower phase of communism, or the dictatorship of the proletariat, as socialism.

Marx called his transitional political phase when state power was wielded by the proletariat 'the dictarorship of the proletariat'. He referred to the economic lower stage of communism (before the society of abundance is acheived) as the lower stage of communism.

Socialism is not 'state ownership of the economy' or how could anarchists be socialists? State ownership of the economy is state capitalism, as any anarchist should know.

[The Insurrection]

You're making the equation between the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism. That makes you a Leninist. That's what seperates Leninists from all other Marxists.

No. Again, you're confusing yourself. The dictatorship of the proletariat, as argued by Marx and by Lenin is the state ownership of the means of production - also called socialism.

What would make me a Leninist is if I supported that as an objective. All I am doing is articulating a political position.


'He doesn't call it socialism but it is socialism'... and yet, I asked you where Marx called the lower stage of communism 'socialism' and you... failed to provide an answer.

I have not provided a quote where he uses the word socialism, that is correct, but I have provided something even better, which is a quote of him describing socialism as a transitional phase.

You cannot achieve very much if you only depend on superficial "evidence" and understandings of political texts. Unfortunately, sometimes you are going to have dig a bit deeper and rely on sub-text and a more broader understanding of political theory.


So, I think we can agree, Marx doesn't refer to either the lower phase of communism, or the dictatorship of the proletariat, as socialism.

I suppose technically you're correct. He never uses the word "socialism", but that seems a pretty redundant point to claim, since he talks at length about socialism, even describing it as the "first step".

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but I suggest you go back and re-read the text with a little more nuance.


Marx called his transitional political phase when state power was wielded by the proletariat 'the dictarorship of the proletariat'. He referred to the economic lower stage of communism (before the society of abundance is acheived) as the lower stage of communism.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is where "the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy. The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State"

In other words, socialism.


Socialism is not 'state ownership of the economy' or how could anarchists be socialists? State ownership of the economy is state capitalism, as any anarchist should know.

I have never in all my years heard an anarchist call themselves a socialist. But I refer you back to Bakunin's pamphlet Stateless Socialism.

[Sasha]

What classes are left as soon as the ownership of the means of production are taken over by the whole of the working class? The (petit-) bourgeois will lose their ownership and by definition will seize to exist as a class, and even someone who accepts the "lumpen" as a distinct class separated from the proletariat (which I dont) would be a lousy communist if they wouldnt expect them to be elevated during/after the revolution.
So again, how could either socialism and the dotp not depend on a class free society?

[The Insurrection]

What classes are left as soon as the ownership of the means of production are taken over by the whole of the working class? The (petit-) bourgeois will lose their ownership and by definition will seize to exist as a class, and even someone who accepts the "lumpen" as a distinct class separated from the proletariat (which I dont) would be a lousy communist if they wouldnt expect them to be elevated during/after the revolution.
So again, how could either socialism and the dotp not depend on a class free society?
The ruling class aren't going to disappear just because the workers have taken control of the means of production.

[Blake's Baby]

No. Again, you're confusing yourself. The dictatorship of the proletariat, as argued by Marx and by Lenin is the state ownership of the means of production - also called socialism.

What would make me a Leninist is if I supported that as an objective. All I am doing is articulating a political position.



I have not provided a quote where he uses the word socialism, that is correct, but I have provided something even better, which is a quote of him describing socialism as a transitional phase.

You cannot achieve very much if you only depend on superficial "evidence" and understandings of political texts. Unfortunately, sometimes you are going to have dig a bit deeper and rely on sub-text and a more broader understanding of political theory.



I suppose technically you're correct. He never uses the word "socialism", but that seems a pretty redundant point to claim, since he talks at length about socialism, even describing it as the "first step".

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but I suggest you go back and re-read the text with a little more nuance.



The dictatorship of the proletariat is where "the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy. The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State"

In other words, socialism.



I have never in all my years heard an anarchist call themselves a socialist. But I refer you back to Bakunin's pamphlet Stateless Socialism.

I called myself a socialist for the 20 years I was an Anarchist-Communist. In that time the only time I ever heard of anyone refering to 'anarcho-communists' they were Marxists. Are you sure you're not a Leninist? Have you ever read any anarchists ever? How about Kroptkin, are you happy with him as a reliable source? He referred to anarchism as 'the non-governmental form of socialism'. Maybe you should go to the Anarchist FAQ and check out 'what is anarchism?' as you don't seem to know much about it. http://infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ

You keep claiming that the dictatorship of the proletariat is called 'socialism'... but nowhere can you show where anyone actually calls it socialism except for you. Now, I know for a fact that Lenin does (you haven't even demonstrated that and I gave you it on a plate) but I do know that to be the case. However, I also know that Marx doesn't call it socialism because he doesn't draw a distinction between socialism and communism. Either prove he did or shut the fuck up because you're getting boring.

[Sasha]

The ruling class aren't going to disappear just because the workers have taken control of the means of production.

They either end up shot or are absorbed in to the working class, I prefer the latter but either way they disappear as a class, you are not part of the ruling class anymore if you don't rule anything anymore.
We strive for the abolition off all classes, the ruling class first, our own last.

[The Insurrection]

I called myself a socialist for the 20 years I was an Anarchist-Communist. In that time the only time I ever heard of anyone refering to 'anarcho-communists' they were Marxists. Are you sure you're not a Leninist? Have you ever read any anarchists ever? How about Kroptkin, are you happy with him as a reliable source? He referred to anarchism as 'the non-governmental form of socialism'. Maybe you should go to the Anarchist FAQ and check out 'what is anarchism?' as you don't seem to know much about it. http://infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ

For someone with so much experience, your attitude towards other revolutionaries leaves a lot to be desired.

Of course anarchists have called themselves socialists, I referenced an anarchist using the term socialist in my last post. Clearly there are also modern anarchists who call themselves socialists, I have just never heard anyone do that, not in my time anyway.

Nevertheless, unless you are referring to stateless socialism, then I am happy with the universally accepted definition of the term socialist to mean state ownership of the means of production.


However, I also know that Marx doesn't call it socialism because he doesn't draw a distinction between socialism and communism. Either prove he did or shut the fuck up because you're getting boring.I already have proven that he does make that distinction. I'll provide the quote again:

"We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy. The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible."

If you want to explain to me how that quote does not specifically define socialism, then perhaps you should do that. Just repeating yourself isn't substitute for an argument.

Can I also ask that you refrain from being so rude. It's completely unnecessary. This isn't a competition, it's a discussion, the purpose of which is to develop ideas and thought. If you are frustrated then don't participate, but behaving like the way you are doing is just completely inappropriate.

[The Insurrection]

They either end up shot or are absorbed in to the working class, I prefer the latter but either way they disappear as a class, you are not part of the ruling class anymore if you don't rule anything anymore.
We strive for the abolition off all classes, the ruling class first, our own last.

None of that I am disputing. I am simply explaining that the dictatorship of the proletariat, whatever form it takes, is not classless. When we have a classless society, we will have communism.

[Sasha]

Hence why Blake is questioning whether your not a leninist, only leninsts think you can have dictatorship of the proletariat and/or socialism in a nation state.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Socialism is much more than just a "transitional period". Socialism is a mode of economic production, one where the means of econcomic production and distribution are commonly owned by the productive members of society. Socialism is called a transitional phase because it is neccessary to develop communism, but under communism socialism does not dissapear, it is still the mode of economic production.

[Blake's Baby]

... the universally accepted definition of the term socialist to mean state ownership of the means of production...

"Universally accepted" by you and Lenin but not by Marx Engels Kropotkin Luxemburg Morris Malatesta Aldred Maximov Goldman Berkman Makhno: nor accepted by the AF, SolFed, ICC, ICT, SPGB, CBG or any other of the non-Leninist organisations in the country you inhabit.

A very small universe you inhabit. It only has you and the Leninists in it, and you've already said you disagree with them.




... Just repeating yourself isn't substitute for an argument...


... the universally accepted definition of the term socialist to mean state ownership of the means of production...

Assertion with no evidence offered.


Socialism isn't a classless society...

Assertion with no evidence offered.


... also called socialism...

Assertion with no evidence offered.


... I am simply making the argument that socialism does not advocate "classless" society, it advocates state ownership of the economy, which is what the dictatorship of the proletariat is and what Marx called for...

Assertion with no evidence offered.

So, you're unable to offer any evidence that any writer has ever referred to the dictatorship of the proletariat as socialism, even when I prompted you (you're right, it's not a competition, if it was I'd hardly be trying to give you the answers would I?).

What this comes down to is you think socialism=the dictatorship of the proletariat=the lower pghase of communism, which means that you made the same mistake Lenin did; but then, when anyone asks you about socialism, you refer to the DotP, and say 'that's what socialism is'. So according to you Marx is talking about socialism when in fact he's talking about the DotP... or sometime the lower phase of communism.


None of that I am disputing. I am simply explaining that the dictatorship of the proletariat, whatever form it takes, is not classless. When we have a classless society, we will have communism.


We know the dictatorship of the proletariat is not classless, none of us ever said it was. We said socialism is classless. As only you (and the Leninists) equate socialism with the dictatorship of the proletariat, we're all quite happy that the DotP is not classless but socialism is, because we're aware that they're two different things. As you seem intent on linking them and then telling us we're wrong about them, I think you should either demonstrate where Marx (foir instance) refers to the DotP as being socialism, or demonstrate empirically how you can equate the two, or admit that you have confused two different things (under the influence of Leninism) and let the rest of us get on with our lives.

[The Insurrection]

"Universally accepted" by you and Lenin but not by Marx Engels Kropotkin Luxemburg Morris Malatesta Aldred Maximov Goldman Berkman Makhno: nor accepted by the AF, SolFed, ICC, ICT, SPGB, CBG or any other of the non-Leninist organisations in the country you inhabit.

But Morris, Kropotkin, Baknin, Malatesta, Berkman etc all distinguished anarchist socialism to Marxist socialism. So did Marx and Engels.

There are various definitions of the term "socialist". Bakunin referred to anarchism as Stateless Socialism, which is obviously a distinct form of socialism. This I have said repeatedly.

What point are you trying to convey?


Assertion with no evidence offered.Socialism (http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=socialism&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gl=uk)


So, you're unable to offer any evidence that any writer has ever referred to the dictatorship of the proletariat as socialism, even when I prompted you (you're right, it's not a competition, if it was I'd hardly be trying to give you the answers would I?).Blake...


I already have proven that he does make that distinction. I'll provide the quote again:

"We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy. The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible."

If you want to explain to me how that quote does not specifically define socialism, then perhaps you should do that. Just repeating yourself isn't substitute for an argument.

That is my evidence. Address it. Tell me why I'm wrong.


What this comes down to is you think socialism=the dictatorship of the proletariat=the lower pghase of communism, which means that you made the same mistake Lenin did; but then, when anyone asks you about socialism, you refer to the DotP, and say 'that's what socialism is'. So according to you Marx is talking about socialism when in fact he's talking about the DotP... or sometime the lower phase of communism.Look. I don't understand what's going on here. I don't get whether you're trolling me or you're not reading my posts or what, but this is just all very strange. I don't know what more I can say to you other than what I have already said.

I am not propositioning an argument in favour of the DotP. I am simply making the argument that Karl Marx referred to separate stages of revolution, one of which was socialism and that socialism, or at least Marxist socialism, advocates the state ownership of the means of production, as defined in the above quote.

If you do not agree with my analysis of that quote then I challenge you to explain why. This is the process of debate. I say something then you build up on that. All you have done so far is repeat yourself. It's slightly insane.


We know the dictatorship of the proletariat is not classless, none of us ever said it was. We said socialism is classless.If what you're saying is true, then what is the difference between socialism and communism? When Marx refers to the dictatorship of the proletariat and the functions of society, then what is he referring to if it's not socialism?

[Blake's Baby]

How many times must I answer the same questions?

Marx is referring to the dictatorship of the proletariat, except when he's referring to the lower stage of communism (two different things).

Marx never equates the dictatorship of the proletariat with socialism, that was Lenin.

There is no difference between socialism and communism unless you follow Lenin, which no-one does but you and the Leninists.

You constant assertion without evidence that the dictatorship of the proletariat = socialism is the problem. Demonstrate which previous socialist thinkers have made this equation, or demonstrate by your own reasoning that they are the same thing, or shut up about it because you're wrong. Please, any of those three things. Just don't keep repeating that the DotP = socialism and then when asked for your evidence just talk about the DotP. No where in the last 10 post or whetever it is have you at any point offered any evidence that any socialist except yourself thinks that the DotP is the same as socialism.

[The Insurrection]

How many times must I answer the same questions?

Marx is referring to the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Marx never equates the dictatorship of the proletariat with socialism, that was Lenin.

Blake. For fuck sake. Read what I am asking.

I want you to explain to me how that quote is not a definition of socialism. If what Marx is talking about in that quote is not socialism - WHAT IS IT!?


You constant assertion without evidence that the dictatorship of the proletariat = socialism is the problem. Demonstrate which previous socialist thinkers have made this distinction, or demonstrate by your own reasoning that they are the same thingMarx discusses two stages to the process of establishing a classless society. He says: "We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy. The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible."

Right there he says THE FIRST STEP i.e. the step preceding the second is to raise the proletariat to the position of the ruling class and to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the state.

He defines this step in the Gotha programme as the dictatorship of the proletariat: "Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

He lays out demands for a transitional programme:


1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
If this period of transition and this transitional programme are not socialism: WHAT ARE THEY?!

What he is talking about is the state, allegedly dominated by the proletariat, socialising production and enforcing socialised standards of taxation and economic planning.

From that, I am extrapolating that he is referring to some kind of state socialism (since what he is talking about is socialising the means of production by using the state). This he calls the dictatorship of the proletariat ("this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.) Ergo the state socialism he is describing as the transition is also the dictatorship of the proletariat that he is also referring to as a transitional period.

Since Marx's definition of the state is that the state exists because class antagonism exists, it follows that the socialism he is referring to in relation to the dictatorship of the proletariat to is not classless. That is why this transitional phase moves into communism which is stateless and with it classless... :scared:

If you want to refute anything I've said then you need to do the following things:

1. Define what socialism is
2. Explain why your definition of socialism precludes the programme of socialisation that Marx talks about
3. Explain how the transitional period Marx talks about is not the dictatorship of the proletariat
4. Explain what all these texts are referring to if they are not referring to a) state socialism and b) the dictatorship of the proletariat as that state socialism.

[Blake's Baby]

No, you have to explain why you think that the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism are the same thing.

Nowhere does Marx call the DotP 'socialism'. Therefore, you should explain where you got the notion that DotP = socialism comes from.

[The Insurrection]

No, you have to explain why you think that the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism are the same thing.

:lol:

I have done that. Re-read my post.


Nowhere does Marx call the DotP 'socialism'.

He doesn't have to, since what he is describing as the dictatorship of the proletariat IS SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Blake's Baby]

:lol:

I have done that. Re-read my post.



He doesn't have to, since what he is describing as the dictatorship of the proletariat IS SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


All you're doing is saying 'this equals that'. You're not demonstrating anything. You just assert it over and over again. But provide no evidence.

So, if the DotP = socialism, then Marx in talking about the DotP is talking about socialism.

But if the DotP is not equal to socialism, then when Marx talks about the DotP he is not talking about socialism.

Your evidence that Marx is talking about socialism is ... well it is.

My evidence is that Marx didn't ever call the DotP 'socialism'.

You ask 'what is Marx talking about if not socialism' and I've answered you at least twice and potentially several more times [EDIT, just checked and this now the 4th time I've answered this question], that he's talking at different points about the DotP, and about the lower stage of communism, which are neither identical with each or other or with socialism.

However, you have completely ignored this answerr and merely repeated your questions, while failing to answer my questions, such as: where does Marx equate the DotP with socialism? Which other socialists equate the DotP with socialism? Where did you get the idea that the DotP can be equated with socialism? etc.


So; to recap. You and Lenin believe that the DotP and socialism are the same thing. You want to know why Marx is not talking about socialism; the answer is that socialism is a classless communal society, as was posted on page 1 of this thread when you jumped in to argue, and Marx is talking about the DotP, which is not the same thing. You want to know what Marx is talking about if he's not talking about socialism. He's talking at various times about the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the lower stage of communism. These are not the same thing, even if Lenin thought otherwise, and neither is the same as socialism, even if Lenin thought otherwise. Constantly pulling out a quote about the DotP and claiming it's about socialism only works if you believe that the DotP was socialism, which most of us (except the Leninists) don't.

Guess the ball is now in your court.

[Hiero]

What classes are left as soon as the ownership of the means of production are taken over by the whole of the working class?

This is why it is called a transitional period, it would take time to transition ownership. Only in a comic book world anyone imagine that the whole means of production would be owned by the working class in such a short period of time to annihilate all classes. It would be even counter productive to accumulate all means of production under the worker class as it would probably stagnate the economy. For instance disrupting the agricultural sector by removing the rural bourgeois would disrupt productivity. Or trying to maintian a hold over small buisness would be unnecessary and time consuming.

The point of the transitional period is for the working class to consolidate power. It does that by holding key parts of the economy and building a monopoly of power in the political and cultural sphere. In capitalist society the bourgeoisie owns the majority of the means of production, but not all the means of production. In Western societies it also faces middle class power from their economic capital at political and cultural sphere. Yet the bourgeoisie is the ruling class because it owns key parts of the economy and signficant influence in the political and cultural sphere (it naturalises it's rule).

What do you call the time when the working class may partially only own the means of production?

Basically the classes wont stand by to be "shot or are absorbed in to the working class". Why do you think people like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others went the way they did? It is because they faced such complications and realised that things were not going to flow as neatly as Marx's ideas of a natural progression of class history foretold.

Lenin built his theory on the state because he knew you can't just shoot or absorb, so he built the concept of vanguard and state power to maintain worker's power. Stalin extended this to ridiculous extremes creating a paranoiac state structure. Mao focused on the cultural sphere to remove old ideas but created fanatics. Pol Pot was more inline with your "shoot or absorb" and forced various non-working class into a system of forced labour with the lowest rank of peasant in charge of the system.

I honestly think the idea of total revolution has been tried and is dead, and the gradual revolution is the way of the post 20th centuary socialism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Why did you mention Pol Pot in the first place? I'm quite sure he wasn't a genuine revolutionary.

[The Insurrection]

All you're doing is saying 'this equals that'. You're not demonstrating anything. You just assert it over and over again. But provide no evidence.

So, if the DotP = socialism, then Marx in talking about the DotP is talking about socialism.

But if the DotP is not equal to socialism, then when Marx talks about the DotP he is not talking about socialism.

Your evidence that Marx is talking about socialism is ... well it is.

My evidence is that Marx didn't ever call the DotP 'socialism'.

You ask 'what is Marx talking about if not socialism' and I've answered you at least twice and potentially several more times [EDIT, just checked and this now the 4th time I've answered this question], that he's talking at different points about the DotP, and about the lower stage of communism, which are neither identical with each or other or with socialism.

However, you have completely ignored this answerr and merely repeated your questions, while failing to answer my questions, such as: where does Marx equate the DotP with socialism? Which other socialists equate the DotP with socialism? Where did you get the idea that the DotP can be equated with socialism? etc.


So; to recap. You and Lenin believe that the DotP and socialism are the same thing. You want to know why Marx is not talking about socialism; the answer is that socialism is a classless communal society, as was posted on page 1 of this thread when you jumped in to argue, and Marx is talking about the DotP, which is not the same thing. You want to know what Marx is talking about if he's not talking about socialism. He's talking at various times about the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the lower stage of communism. These are not the same thing, even if Lenin thought otherwise, and neither is the same as socialism, even if Lenin thought otherwise. Constantly pulling out a quote about the DotP and claiming it's about socialism only works if you believe that the DotP was socialism, which most of us (except the Leninists) don't.

Guess the ball is now in your court.

You simply don't understand what I have said. That, or you're a troll.

Whatever the reason for your madness, I have adequately substantiated my claim and for anyone reading this thread they can clearly see that.

Thanks.

[Hiero]

Why did you mention Pol Pot in the first place? I'm quite sure he wasn't a genuine revolutionary.

What is a genuine revolutionary?

I mentioned him because he studied in France, did the whole student movement thing, learnt Marx, went back to Cambodia, jumped on the popular movement and tried eradicate class in Cambodia.

Do people honestly think eradicating class is a humanitarian act? Do you think shooting or absorbing people into the working class is a humanitarian act.

The whole point of classism is it is an ideal, not just a pratical choice between do it or don't do it, and certian men in history choose not to do it. That is what pisses me off about this forum, people have no imagination about the consequences of what they are saying. "shooting or absorbing" is gulags and mass execution. Yet the people say that a vehemently opposed to people who used such methods.

That is why I am saying total revolution is dead.

[The Insurrection]

What is total revolution? What is the alternative?

[Blake's Baby]

You simply don't understand what I have said. That, or you're a troll.

Whatever the reason for your madness, I have adequately substantiated my claim and for anyone reading this thread they can clearly see that.

Thanks.

You're right I don't understand what you're saying. There's a prety clear reason I think. You're an idiot.

Nowhere have you said that socialism=dictatorship of the proletariat to anyone except yourself. You've been asked to supply info about other socialists who agree with you; you haven't. You've been asked to demonstrate that socialism is the DotP by argument, but you haven't. You've been asked to shut up and stop spamming the thread with your quote about the DotP, but you haven't.

All you do is trot out the same quote about the DotP and claim that's about socialism, while presenting no evidence except 'but that's what socialism is'. Yes, according to you, and accordsing to Lenin, but not according to a whole load of other socialists including the founder of the tendency you claim to espouse.

Then you repeatedly ask what the Marx quote is about if not socialism, and 4 times you ignore the answer that it's about the DotP.

You then conflate Marx talking about the DotP with Marx talking about the lower stage of communism, and call it all socialism.

For someone who intervened on this thread to challenge someone else's statement about socialism with your own assertions, you're remarkably poor about providing evidence.

I say again:

please provide evidence that Marx used the term 'socialism' as a synonym for the DotP. Or, please provide evidence that any socialist theorist thought that the DotP was socialism. Or, demonstrate in your own words with the power of logical thought that the DotP should be equated with socialism.

If you cannot, please stop asserting that Marx was discussing 'socialism' when he discussed the DotP.

Please priovide evidence that Marx believed that the lower phase of communism was properly called 'socialism'. Or, please provide evidence that any socialist theorist thought that the lower phase of communism was socialism. Or, demonstrate in your own words with the power of logical thought that the lower phase of communism should be equated with socialism.

If you cannot, please stop referring to the lower phase of communism as socialism.

Please priovide evidence that Marx believed that the lower phase of communism was the same as the DotP. Or, please provide evidence that any socialist theorist thought that the lower phase of communism was the same as the DotP. Or, demonstrate in your own words with the power of logical thought that the lower phase of communism should be equated with the DotP.

If you cannot, please stop referring to the lower phase of communism as the same as the DotP.

I'm really not sure how I can be any more clear than this. But I'll try.


Marx's schema for understanding the revolutionary process:

1 - revolution, which immediately sets up the dictatorship of the proletariat, in which the proletariat administers society, possibly in a fairly brutal fashion, to suppress the capitalists and win the civil war - this is a class society with a state of sorts;

2 - once capitalism has been suppressed, the state withers away and we enter the lower phase of communism - in this society, production has not yet been sufficiently rationalised to guarantee the fulfillment of all human needs - we have not yet reached the society of abundance, but this is still a classless communal society;

3 - once a situation of super-abundance has been reached we enter the higher phase of communism, when the principle of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs' is a living reality.

Those are the terms Marx uses so when discussing Marx I sugest you stick to them.

Now, Lenin conflated the first two parts of this schema and called them 'socialism'. If you're going to use the term 'socialism' as Lenin did I think you have to defend that usage using Lenin, not Marx. Marx doesn't conflate the first and second 'stages' of this process, you can't pretend he did, and he doesn't call the first of these stages 'socialism' and nor does he use 'socialism' for the second stage in distinction to the 'communism' of the last stage - that's Lenin again - because for Marx 'socialism' and 'communism' were the same thing, and you shouldn't pretend otherwise; they both refer to the classless communal society after the suppression of capitalism and the withering away of the state.

Which I think is where we came in, with you somewhat arrogantly 'correcting' someone else and then refusing to offer any evidence to support your position.

[Kornilios Sunshine]

National Socialism is just a shitty disguise for the criminal ideology of Nazism. Besides, business creating and unemployement during the Hitler era were as high as hell. I don't think such things have relation to socialism,haven't they?

[The Insurrection]

please provide evidence that Marx used the term 'socialism' as a synonym for the DotP.

This is the crux of this stupid discussion.

It seems to me that you have no ability at understanding the sub-text of political themes. The whole premise of your argument is that I have not provided an extract from a piece of writing where Marx says "the dictatorship of the proletariat is socialism". That is the sum of your argument. It doens't matter that I have provided you with quotes and reasoning as to where and how Marx conflated those two things. It doesn't matter that I have shown you where Marx specifically describes socialism. The fact he never actually said "socialism" is, apparently, perfectly adequate for you.

Well I'm sorry, but this superficial way of understanding political texts is not what grown ups do. Subtext (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subtext) is an incredibly important part of understanding ideas written down, because sometimes people aren't specific. Sometimes you have to scratch beneath the surface, use a deeper understanding of ideas to really grapple with their meaning. The argument "well he didn't actually say the word" is entirely puerile.

As I have said, you are correct, I have not provided you with a quote where Marx says the exact words: "the DotP is the same as socialism", but so what? I don't need to provide such a quote since Marx adequately describes socialism in relation to what the dictatorship of the proletariat is. He does it the Communist Manifesto and the Gotha Programme.

If you want to reject that he is describing socialism anything I've said, then provide a substantial argument as to why you're rejecting it. Just saying "oh you haven't shown me where he says socialism" over and over again just makes you look foolish.


Then you repeatedly ask what the Marx quote is about if not socialism, and 4 times you ignore the answer that it's about the DotP.That's not a sufficient response. You're making a circuluar argument. You're essentially saying that the dictatorship of the proletariat is the dictatorship of the proletariat because it's the dictatorship of the proletariat.

I'm sorry, the dictatorship of the proletariat is, according to Marx, a specific phase with specific objectives. Namely, the creation of state socialism as outlined in The Communist Manifesto and the Gotha Programme.

[Blake's Baby]

This is the crux of this stupid discussion.

It seems to me that you have no ability at understanding the sub-text of political themes. The whole premise of your argument is that I have not provided an extract from a piece of writing where Marx [OR ANY OTHER SOCIALIST BUT YOURSELF] says "the dictatorship of the proletariat is socialism". That is the sum of your argument. It doens't matter that I have provided you with quotes and reasoning as to where and how Marx conflated those two things [NO YOU HAVEN'T, YOU PROVIDED A QUOTE WHERE MARX DESCRIBES THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT AND CALLS IT THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT]. It doesn't matter that I have shown you where Marx specifically describes socialism [NO, YOU HAVE SHOWN WHERE MARX DESCRIBES THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT] The fact he never actually said "socialism" is, apparently, perfectly adequate for you [YES, BECAUSE ONLY YOU AND LENIN THINK THIS SOCIALISM]

Well I'm sorry, but this superficial way of understanding political texts is not what grown ups do. Sutext (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subtext) is an incredibly important part of understanding ideas written down, because sometimes people aren't specific. Sometimes you have to scratch beneath the surface, use a deeper understanding of ideas to really grapple with their meaning. The argument "well he didn't actually say the word" is entirely puerile [PRETTY IMPORTANT WHEN WE'RE DISCUSSING WHAT WORDS MEAN IN MY OPINION, SPECIFICALLY THE MEANING OF THE THE WORD 'SOCIALISM' THAT YOU CHALLENGED ON PAGE 1 OF THIS DISCUSSION]

As I have said, you are correct, I have not provided you with a quote where Marx says the exact words: "the DotP is the same as socialism", but so what? [SO WHAT? IS THAT MARX DID NOT BELIEVE THAT THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT AND SOCIALISM WERE THE SAME THING] I don't need to provide such a quote since Marx adequately describes socialism [NO HE DESCRIBES THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT] in relation to what the dictatorship of the proletariat is. He does it the Communist Manifesto and the Gotha Programme.

If you want to reject that he is describing socialism anything I've said, then provide a substantial argument as to why you're rejecting it. Just saying "oh you haven't shown me where he says socialism" over and over again just makes you look foolish [MARX DOESN'T CALL IT SOCIALISM AND NO OTHER 19TH-CENTURY SOCIALISTS CALL IT SOCIALISM AND NO MARXIST BEFORE LENIN CALLS IT SOCIALISM AND NO NON-LENIST MARXIST AFTER LENIN CALLS IT SOCIALISM AND NO ANARCHIST AFTER LENIN CALLS IT SOCIALISM EITHER, EXCEPT YOU - IT SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR TO ME THAT YOU ARE FOLLOWING LENIN'S CATEGORIES AND MISTAKING PHASES 1 & 2 OF MARX'S SCHEMA AND MISCALLING THEM SOCIALISM].



That's not a sufficient response. You're making a circuluar argument. You're essentially saying that the dictatorship of the proletariat is the dictatorship of the proletariat because it's the dictatorship of the proletariat [WHEN SOMEONE SHOWS YOU A PICTURE OF A DOG, AND YOU ASK WHAT IT IS, YOU ARE TOLD IT IS A DOG. CONSTANTLY ASKING WHY IT IS NOT A BOAT IS NOT HELPFUL. LIKEWISE, MARX WAS TALKING ABOUT THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT. ASKING WHAT IS THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT WILL PROVIDE THE ANSWER THAT, ESSENTIALLY, IT IS THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT. MARX DESCRIBES ITS FEATURES, AND GIVES IT A NAME. WHAT MORE INFO DO YOU WANT?].

I'm sorry, the dictatorship of the proletariat is, according to Marx, a specific phase with specific objectives. Namely, the creation of state socialism [BUT IT ISN'T SOCIALISM, IT'S THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT] as outlined in The Communist Manifesto and the Gotha Programme.

Is that any clearer?

[The Insurrection]

OK, well, I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree.

[The Insurrection]

For the record, what is the socialised/state ownership of production called if it's not called socialism?

[Blake's Baby]

You're the ass who arrogantly intervened on the thread with your 'correction' of someone else's definition of socialism, and you've been unable to put one shred of evidence to support your claim (despite me begging you to use Lenin to do so, as he's the only socialist source you've got for your definition). Why exactly should anyone agree to disagree? did you 'agree to disagree' with Psycho?


Socialism isn't a classless society...

Yes it is.

The dictaroship of the proletariat isn't the same thing as socialism, for Marx, Engels, Kropotkin, Goldman, Berkman, Maximov, Makhno, Morris, Aldred, the SPGB, the Anarchist Federation, Solidairity Federation, International Communist Current, Internationalist Communist Tendency... just you and Lenin.



For the record, what is the socialised/state ownership of production called if it's not called socialism?

You even quoted my answer to this question earlier - but apparently didn't read it.

To everyone except Leninists, state ownership of the means of production is state capitalism.

[The Insurrection]

You're the ass who arrogantly intervened on the thread with your 'correction' of someone else's definition of socialism, and you've been unable to put one shred of evidence to support your claim (despite me begging you to use Lenin to do so, as he's the only socialist source you've got for your definition). Why exactly should anyone agree to disagree? did you 'agree to disagree' with Psycho?

That's clearly a matter of opinion, since I am asserting that I have provided evidence. The fact you don't think it's evidence is neither here-nor-there.


Yes it is.

The dictaroship of the proletariat isn't the same thing as socialism, for Marx, Engels, Kropotkin, Goldman, Berkman, Maximov, Makhno, Morris, Aldred, the SPGB, the Anarchist Federation, Solidairity Federation, International Communist Current, Internationalist Communist Tendency... just you and Lenin.Marx, Engels, Luxembourg all advocated the socialised/state ownership of production as the first step to creating communism. The first step to creating socialism was called the dictatorship of the proletariat. So it follows that socialised/state ownership of production i.e socialism, is the dictatorship of the proletariat, according to Marx, etc.

[The Insurrection]

It's quite interesting to watch someone try and defend their whole belief system when it's refuted. You're pretty desperate, aren't you?

[Blake's Baby]

That's clearly a matter of opinion, since I am asserting that I have provided evidence. The fact you don't think it's evidence is neither here-nor-there.


You provided a quote about the DotP, and claimed that the DotP is the same as socialism, but you haven't offered any evidence from any socialist writer that the DotP is the same as socialism. That's all I'm asking for. One socialist who calls the DotP 'socialism'. Just one, in the last 160 years. Go on. Go on. You know you want to.



Marx, Engels, Luxembourg all advocated the socialised/state ownership of production as the first step to creating communism. The first step to creating socialism was called the dictatorship of the proletariat. So it follows that socialised/state ownership of production i.e socialism, is the dictatorship of the proletariat, according to Marx, etc.

The first step to creating socialism is socialism? Is that seriously what you're arguing?

[PhoenixAsh]

That's clearly a matter of opinion, since I am asserting that I have provided evidence. The fact you don't think it's evidence is neither here-nor-there.

Marx, Engels, Luxembourg all advocated the socialised/state ownership of production as the first step to creating communism. The first step to creating socialism was called the dictatorship of the proletariat. So it follows that socialised/state ownership of production i.e socialism, is the dictatorship of the proletariat, according to Marx, etc.

Logically from your words would follow that if the DOTP is the first stage of creating socialism then what comes after the DOTP is also socialism.

So rationally we are back at square one.

Because now that we have established that. What is communism?

So apply these two together...and you will come to the right concusion. Marx doesn't distinguish.

[The Insurrection]

You provided a quote about the DotP, and claimed that the DotP is the same as socialism, but you haven't offered any evidence from any socialist writer that the DotP is the same as socialism. That's all I'm asking for. One socialist who calls the DotP 'socialism'. Just one, in the last 160 years. Go on. Go on. You know you want to.

I have provided evidence that Marx talked about state socialism being the first step to communism. I have also demonstrated how Marx also referred to that first step as the dictatorship of the proletariat.


The first step to creating socialism is socialism? Is that seriously what you're arguing?As far as Marx and Engels were concerned the first stage of creating communism was the establishment of state socialism. This is precisely why Bakunin wrote Stateless Socialism and indeed Marxism, Freedom and the State. It is precisely why anarchism took opposition to Marxism.

It may be the case that you define communism and socialism as being the same thing, if you are talking about "stateless socialism", then I agree, but Bakunin clearly saw the need to distinguish between State socialism (as advocated by Marx) and Stateless socialism (as advocated by the anarchists).

Bakunin and the anarchists formed a reaction to the transtionary programme talked about by Marx. I.e. the state ownership of the means of production. Marx outlines very clearly what he means by a transitionary step when he calls for the means of production to be brought into the hands of state. He talks in the programme about centralising production into the hands of the state. Hence anarchist opposition.

It's right there, in the communist manifesto. Also, in the Gotha programme he talks about how this first step, where the workers centralise production into the state is called the dictatorship of the proletariat.

I don't understand why it's so unclear, or why you are going to so much effort to try and deny it.

[Blake's Baby]

I have provided evidence that Marx talked about state socialism being the first step to communism. I have also demonstrated how Marx also referred to that first step as the dictatorship of the proletariat...

No, you provided evidence that Marx talked about the dictatorship of the proletariat, and that Marx believed that the DotP was the first step to communism. 'State socialism' is nowhere mentioned. You're just offering your opinion that the DotP is 'socialism' or 'state socialism' as evidence.


...

It's right there, in the communist manifesto. Also, in the Gotha programme he talks about how this first step, where the workers centralise production into the state is called the dictatorship of the proletariat.

I don't understand why it's so unclear, or why you are going to so much effort to try and deny it.

That's clear, and I agree with how you've laid it out. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is, according to Marx, a stage in which the proletariat wields state power. I said that several times.

Now; please explain at why you, or any other socialist writer if you can find one (hint, Lenin), think 'the dictatorship of the proletariat' is the same as 'socialism'.

[The Insurrection]

Because the definition of socialism is socialised/state ownership of the means of production. Planned economies are a fundamental part of socialism...

[Blake's Baby]

Says who? Not Marx. Not Kropotkin. Not Engels... just you and Lenin.

[The Insurrection]

Says who? Not Marx. Not Kropotkin. Not Engels... just you and Lenin.

Well, actually Kropotkin talks about state socialism in both his pamphlet Anarchism and in Conquest of Bread.

[The Insurrection]

Also, Engels talks about state ownership in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.

[Blake's Baby]

And where do either of these equate it with DotP?

[The Insurrection]

I'm sorry to say it, but Marx and Lenin were not that different. Lenin developed Marx's ideas. There in lies the fundamental problem with Marxism.

[The Insurrection]

And where do either of these equate it with DotP?
If state ownership of the means of production is state socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat is a period of state ownership of the means of production, that means state socialism exists in the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Blake's Baby]

Yes, we went through this 4 pages ago.

If the DotP is the same as socialism...

But if the DotP is not the same as socialism...

[The Insurrection]

You have already agreed that the DotP is a period where the workers wield state power. Marx explains what that means when he talks about centralising production into the state.

If that particular situation is not socialism, then why is the definition that state socialism is the centralised control of production wrong?

You're contradicting yourself basically and anyone can see for themselves that state socialism is the centralised control of production. It's out there. Google it.

I have to leave now. But good luck to you.

[Blake's Baby]

You have already agreed that the DotP is a period where the workers wield state power. Marx explains what that means when he talks about centralising production into the state...

Yes! A breakthrough!




If that particular situation is not socialism, then why is the definition that state socialism is the centralised control of production wrong?

Because socialism is the same as communism. There is no 'state socialism'. To quote Willhelm Liebknecht, 'there is no state socialism, only state capitalism'. I've now said at least 3 times that this stage is state capitalism.


...You're contradicting yourself basically and anyone can see for themselves that state socialism is the centralised control of production. It's out there. Google it...

Seriously? You think that Google trumps Marx, Engels, Kropotkin, Luxemburg, Wilhelm Liebknecht, and dozens of other socialists as to what socialism is? I don't care if you ask your mum. I want to know what socialists agree with your definition - apart from Lenin of course. Though you don't like mentioning him.

[The Insurrection]

Read Conquest of Bread and read Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.

[Blake's Baby]

Read Conquest of Bread and read Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.

I've read both of them thank you.

Now, back to the substance of the contention.

Your definition of socialism is that it includes the state control of production - in other words this is the same as the Marxist dictatorship of the proletariat. This is Lenin's definition, but not Marx's. If other socialists had used it it would render 'state socialism' a tautology - all socialism is state socialism according to your definition - and 'stateless socialism' an oxymoron - how could there be stateless state socialism?

Our definition - mine, Psycho's, Hindsight's, Marx's, Engels', Kropotkin's etc is that socialism is the same as communism and the dictatorship of the proletariat is not the same as socialism. Some of us call it state capitalism, because the state (in the hands of the workers) controls the means of production.

All of this could have been avoided if in your first post you had said 'Socialism is not a classless society, because I'm using Lenin's definition of socialism not Marx's'.

[The Insurrection]

I've read both of them thank you.

Really? Then you will see in those texts that both Kropotkin and Engel's distinguish state socialism from stateless socialism.


Your definition of socialism is that it includes the state control of production - in other words this is the same as the Marxist dictatorship of the proletariat. This is Lenin's definition, but not Marx's.Marx talks specifically about socialising the economy and planning it by using the state. That, as far as I can tell, is a form of socialism.


If other socialists had used it it would render 'state socialism' a tautology - all socialism is state socialism according to your definition - and 'stateless socialism' an oxymoron - how could there be stateless state socialism?But that's a gross misrepresentation of what I've been saying. I have consistently distinguished between two different kinds of socialism. In fact, there are probably even more kinds of socialism if we really analyised the current more thoroughly. But state socialism and stateless socialism seem appropriate for the purposes of this debate and they are a distinction which I have acknowledged. I'm an anarchist. I agree with Bakunin's and Kropotkin's distinction.


Our definition - mine, Psycho's, Hindsight's, Marx's, Engels', Kropotkin's etc is that socialism is the same as communism and the dictatorship of the proletariat is not the same as socialism. Some of us call it state capitalism, because the state (in the hands of the workers) controls the means of production.You're perfectly entitled to your view. As for Kropotkin and Engels, they both make distinguish state socialism in the books I've mentioned. I don't understand why you keep repeating that when I've refuted you.


All of this could have been avoided if in your first post you had said 'Socialism is not a classless society, because I'm using Lenin's definition of socialism not Marx's'But I don't accept that socialism can be classless, unless of course you make the claim that socialism and communism are the same thing, which I don't. I will accept that "stateless socialism" is similar to communism, but I wouldn't accept it is necessarily classless.

[Blake's Baby]

...
Marx talks specifically about socialising the economy and planning it by using the state. That, as far as I can tell, is a form of socialism...

Only if you define socialism the way you do.

I don't see how you can get away from it; you and Lenin and the Leninists define the dictatorship of the proletariat as 'socialism' but neither Marx nor any other Marxist does; which is fine, but you need to back up your opinions about what constitutes 'socialism'. Not by talking about the dictatorship of the proletariat, which for the rest of us is not socialism, but by talking about socialism.

'Socialism is everybody working for the state according to (name of socialist thinker) writing in (name of work about socialism) ' or 'socialism is everybody working for the state because (insert brilliant argument here)'.

Not 'socialism is the dictatorship of the proletartiat because Marx wrote about the dictatorship of the proletariat and that's what socialism is because Google says so'. That's not considered a valid form of argument.

So to sum up again; in your opinion, socialism is state control of the economy, and Marx writes about the DotP as the proletariat wielding state power, so Marx is, in your opinion, writing about socialism when he describes the DotP.

You see, that's logical and coherent. Wrong, I think, because you have a notion of socialism that doesn't accord with the majority of socialists', or Marx's (who after all invented the DotP, and could have called it 'socialism' if he wished). But consistent at least with Lenin's mistaken view that the DotP, the lower stage of communism and socialism were all the same thing.

[The Insurrection]

So, basically what you're trying to argue is that the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e. the state ownership of the means of production, the centralisation of the banking system and of essential services into the hands of the state and massive progressive taxes is not socialism? And when Engels and Kropotkin and Bakunin make the distinction between state socialism and communism, that they are wrong?

[Blake's Baby]

So, basically what you're trying to argue is that the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e. the state ownership of the means of production, the centralisation of the banking system and of essential services into the hands of the state and massive progressive taxes is not socialism?

Yes, that's more or less correct, the dictatorship of the proletariat is not socialism. Because I'm a Marxist, not a Leninist, and I'd suspect that the majority of other users of this forum would go along with that distinction.


...And when Engels and Kropotkin and Bakunin make the distinction between state socialism and communism, that they are wrong?

Care to fish out the quotes you're thinking of so we can deconstruct them?

[The Insurrection]

Yes, that's more or less correct, the dictatorship of the proletariat is not socialism.

Strange. Very strange.


Because I'm a Marxist, not a Leninist, and I'd suspect that the majority of other users of this forum would go along with that distinction.What you are is someone who pathetically tries to preserve Marx as some kind of paragon against Leninists. It's just tragic. This is the problem with you left communists. You just can't get over it. Sad.


Care to fish out the quotes you're thinking of so we can deconstruct them?No, not really. You can read Stateless Anarchism; Marxism, Freedom and the State; Conquest of Bread and Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. It's all in there. You can google them quite easily.

I'm done with this discussion. You're just a very strange person.

[PhoenixAsh]

YOu do realise offcourse that the title of the pamphlet is in actual fact "Stateless Socialism: Anarchism" in which Bakunin argues that there should be no DotP.

Many Anarchists do not consider themselves Marxists but do consider themselves Socialists because they do not believe in the DotP as a transition phase of early socialism/communism.

Bakunin writes in the pamphlet:
In the name of freedom, which we recognize as the only foundation and the only creative principle of organization, economic or political, we shall protest against anything remotely resembling State Communism, or State Socialism.

and:


Convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality

So in citing Anarchists about Marx's idea of socialism/communism it is important to understand that it is very possible that they simply do not ascribe to the niotion of DotP...AT ALL. Hence their differentiation in state socialism and non state socialism.

This has however nothing to do with wether or not Marx differentiates between socialism and communism....because he, and many of the Anarchists you mention...do in fact not make this distinction.

Lenin on the other hand....he does make the distinction. Calling socialism the early/preceeding stage of communism.

This has nothing to do with Marx being a paragon to Lenin....this has everything to do with the redefinition of words.

[Blake's Baby]

I think it has more to do with The Insurrection not wanting to admit 1-he's a Leninist and 2-the majority of socialists disagree with him, personally, but there you go. It does seem strange that he should object to other peole's definitions but be unable to produce a single line of evidence from any writer that backs up his definition of the DotP as socialism.

[The Insurrection]

YOu do realise offcourse that the title of the pamphlet is in actual fact "Stateless Socialism: Anarchism" in which Bakunin argues that there should be no DotP.

Many Anarchists do not consider themselves Marxists but do consider themselves Socialists because they do not believe in the DotP as a transition phase of early socialism/communism.

Bakunin writes in the pamphlet:

and:



So in citing Anarchists about Marx's idea of socialism/communism it is important to understand that it is very possible that they simply do not ascribe to the niotion of DotP...AT ALL. Hence their differentiation in state socialism and non state socialism.

This has however nothing to do with wether or not Marx differentiates between socialism and communism....because he, and many of the Anarchists you mention...do in fact not make this distinction.

Lenin on the other hand....he does make the distinction. Calling socialism the early/preceeding stage of communism.

This has nothing to do with Marx being a paragon to Lenin....this has everything to do with the redefinition of words.

I'm sorry, but I'm confused. I seem to have lost track of what we're arguing about. Can you just tell me what point you're trying to make?

All I am trying to argue is that Marx advocated in his first step, or in other words the dictatorship of the proletariat was state socialism. Something that this Blake person keeps trying to deny.

The whole reason Bakunin's pamphlet emerged and why the anarchists took opposition Marxism was precisely for the reason that Marx advocated state socialism in his "dictatorship of the proletariat".

I have already conceded that people, including Bakunin and Kropotkin use the words socialism and communism interchangeably, but the sheer fact they make the distrinction between what they see as socialism and "state socialism", was because of the ideas laid out by Marx (amongst other people).

[Tovarisch]

The word "national" has no place in socialism. Hitler calling himself a "National Socialist" is as much of a sham as Russian Empire saying that it had "serfs" instead of slaves, when in reality it was the same freaking thing

[Rusty Shackleford]

Dictatorship of the Proletariat (lower stage of socialism/communism) is inherently still a class society. it is only one where the working class now has state power and the capitalists are being repressed out of existence. only when capitalists are gone can the working class cease to exist as a class and therefore classless society can come about.

[Crux]

We know that in Germany, Hitler pretended to be a "national socialist." But even though he persecuted minorities, even the Aryan working class was not in control of the means of production. So I was wondering, what would we call it if a race in a country discriminates against other races and continues to undermine them, but they themselves are in control of the means of production.
I suppose perhaps a Bonapartist state, of a right wing and racist variety yet balancing on the class forces. Like with the devlopment and the eventual fate of the "left" of the Nazis such a movement would soon find itself solidly in the camp of the international bourgeoisie. I think what became of left Zionism is quite instructive as well.

[Blake's Baby]

I'm sorry, but I'm confused. I seem to have lost track of what we're arguing about. Can you just tell me what point you're trying to make?...

We're trying to make the point that, no matter how often you claim the contrary, Marx didn't distinguish between 'socialism' and 'communism', not in the Manifesto (as you wrongly claimed) or any other works, though he does differentiate between the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism; nor did most other socialists either in the 19th century or in the 20th, except those who took their analysis from Lenin.

Furthermore, we're claiming that you, in confusing the dictatorship of the proletariat with the lower stage of communism and the lower stage of communism with 'socialism', are making the same mistake Lenin did, though you don't seem keen to admit it.

Lastly, we're claiming that the majority of both Marxists and Anarchists would not agree with the definition of 'socialism' as being state ownershgip of the means of production, but if you want to find people who would agree with your definition, you'd be best off looking to the Leninists.

[The Insurrection]

We're trying to make the point that, no matter how often you claim the contrary, Marx didn't distinguish between 'socialism' and 'communism', not in the Manifesto (as you wrongly claimed) or any other works, though he does differentiate between the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism; nor did most other socialists either in the 19th century or in the 20th, except those who took their analysis from Lenin.

Wrong.


Furthermore, we're claiming that you, in confusing the dictatorship of the proletariat with the lower stage of communism and the lower stage of communism with 'socialism', are making the same mistake Lenin did, though you don't seem keen to admit it.

Wrong again.


Lastly, we're claiming that the majority of both Marxists and Anarchists would not agree with the definition of 'socialism' as being state ownershgip of the means of production, but if you want to find people who would agree with your definition, you'd be best off looking to the Leninists.

No, anarchists differentiated between state socialism and stateless socialism, as did Engels.

[Rooster]

No, anarchists differentiated between state socialism and stateless socialism, as did Engels.

Quote please because I can't find Engels mentioning "state socialism" anywhere in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, the source you mentioned, at all.

[Blake's Baby]

Wrong.



Wrong again.



No, anarchists differentiated between state socialism and stateless socialism, as did Engels.

And all you have to do is provide the evidence and you can demonstrate where I'm wrong.

And yet, the only things that you've so far produced are a quote about the dictatorship of the proletariat which no-where mentions the definition of socialism, and the title of a work by Bakunin (who I've not referred to at all, as I consider him a second-rate thinker, not a patch on Kropotkin, but if you want to cite him as a source, go ahead, give us the info).

[The Insurrection]

And all you have to do is provide the evidence and you can demonstrate where I'm wrong.

I've already done that. You're just too stupid to understand. You have a very superficial understanding of Marx and then defend your simple interpretations emphatically. You're a fanatic and unprepared to really listen. Probably because to accept what I'm saying you'd have to alter your entire belief systems and clearly you're too old and stubborn to do that.

The fact is that Lenin's developments of Marx were perfectly legitimate, because Marx was the same deterministic authoritarian centralist and their views on the state and on transition should be rejected. Clearly you're in denial of these facts, but that's your downfall, not mine. :)


And yet, the only things that you've so far produced are a quote about the dictatorship of the proletariat which no-where mentions the definition of socialism, and the title of a work by Bakunin (who I've not referred to at all, as I consider him a second-rate thinker, not a patch on Kropotkin, but if you want to cite him as a source, go ahead, give us the info).Go and read the texts for yourself. You're not intelligent enough to participate in this discussion and I'm not inclined to do the work for you. Live in ignorance for all I care.

[The Insurrection]

Quote please because I can't find Engels mentioning "state socialism" anywhere in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, the source you mentioned, at all.

If you want a quote of that nature then you won't find one. But read the entire text, it's clear that he talks about the state ownership of the means of production i.e. state socialism.


"Socialized production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible. The development of production makes the existence of different classes of society thenceforth an anachronism. In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the State dies out."State power and planned economy. The bedrock definition of sate socialism.

[Luís Henrique]

It did, though. It's sort of the Spartan system, where an ethnically-based elite lived an essentially communist lifestyle (there was no private property among the Spartan elite for instance, food was taken in mess-halls and land was alloted) but that group as whole was the ruling class of a brutal militaristic slave-based state something like a 'colonist state' in that it had subjegated a local agricultural population and essentially lived on their enforced tribute.

So Sparta was possibly the closest to an idea of 'ethnic socialism' though it wasn't socialist; just a demonstration that ruling classes don't have to exploit as individuals.

Sparta would have been either an incompletely developed form of slavery, or a variant of "Asiatic" mode of production. Nothing socialist, nothing national socialist, nothing even actually "national" about it.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Marx was the same deterministic authoritarian centralist and their views on the state and on transition should be rejected. Clearly you're in denial of these facts, but that's your downfall, not mine.

Says the supporter of Nachaev's friend...

Luís Henrique

[Blake's Baby]

I've already done that. You're just too stupid to understand. You have a very superficial understanding of Marx and then defend your simple interpretations emphatically. You're a fanatic and unprepared to really listen. Probably because to accept what I'm saying you'd have to alter your entire belief systems and clearly you're too old and stubborn to do that.

The fact is that Lenin's developments of Marx were perfectly legitimate, because Marx was the same deterministic authoritarian centralist and their views on the state and on transition should be rejected. Clearly you're in denial of these facts, but that's your downfall, not mine. :)

Go and read the texts for yourself. You're not intelligent enough to participate in this discussion and I'm not inclined to do the work for you. Live in ignorance for all I care.

Ah, well, in which case it should be easy enough to get someone else to say they agree with you. But, Psycho, an anarchist, and Hindsight, who has a tendency that I'm not sure of, both agreed with me. Now, I'm prepared to admit I may be 'old and stupid' but you're also implying they are.

So; Marx doesn't differentiate between socialism and communism, despite you claiming he does in the Manifesto (this argument, page 1). What he differentiates between is the dictatorship of the proletariat and communism; it's you who inssist that the dictatorship of the proletariat is the same as socialism. When asked for evidence that Marx sees the DotP as socialism, you eventually admit he doesn't 'in so many words' but the DotP is 'obviously' socialism. When asked to provide a reference to any socialist that calls the DotP socialism, you say Engels does. Now, when asked for a demonstration, you write that Engels actually doesn't, but he's talking about socialism anyway.

So, yet again, you can't provide any evidence that any socialist thinks the DotP is the same as socialism.

I can however, and have said about 10 times that Lenin is your man. Honestly, he's your only way out.

[The Insurrection]

Says the supporter of Nachaev's friend...

Luís Henrique

I don't even know what that's supposed to mean? Nachayev had fuck all to do with Bakunin's political thought. They were friends briefly until Nachayev stole loads of money from him and then murdered someone. Are you trying to imply that because they were friends briefly that this some how invalidate Bakunin's politics? Because that's just stupid.

[The Insurrection]

Ah, well, in which case it should be easy enough to get someone else to say they agree with you. But, Psycho, an anarchist, and Hindsight, who has a tendency that I'm not sure of, both agreed with me. Now, I'm prepared to admit I may be 'old and stupid' but you're also implying they are.

I think you put far too much faith in the fact that two strangers agree with you on the Internet. If they agree with you, they are also just as wrong as you are.

[Blake's Baby]

Because you are king of definitions, like Humpty Dumpty.

As long as words mean whatever you like, then of course we are wrong. Or maybe we are cheese, you can pick any word for what we are.

We, however, are speaking a language that we understand and having coherent conversations with it. You're just turning up and telling us we need to use words the same way you do.

Now, this might not have any meaning to you, but it does to me: I don't care about your Leninist definitions of 'socialism' that you can't even reference, so shut the fuck up and stop spamming this thread.

[28350]

I usually don't tell people they need to read more Marx, not because they don't need to, but because it's kind of elitist and useless. After following this 'debate' for 3 pages however, I feel comfortable telling The Insurrection to go read some Marx ffs. Of course it's probably more comfortable to rely on the old anarky crutch that Marx was an evil authoritarian. I know what it's like to be insulated by ideology, I was a fucking marcyite who thought cuba was socialist. I would've agreed with The Insurrection then about the DotP = socialism. THEN I READ SOME FUCKING MARXXX

As for the question posed in the title of this thread, capitalism first and foremost.

[The Insurrection]

I usually don't tell people they need to read more Marx, not because they don't need to, but because it's kind of elitist and useless. After following this 'debate' for 3 pages however, I feel comfortable telling The Insurrection to go read some Marx ffs. Of course it's probably more comfortable to rely on the old anarky crutch that Marx was an evil authoritarian. I know what it's like to be insulated by ideology, I was a fucking marcyite who thought cuba was socialist. I would've agreed with The Insurrection then about the DotP = socialism. THEN I READ SOME FUCKING MARXXX

As for the question posed in the title of this thread, capitalism first and foremost.
Unfortunately for you, I have. I've read extensively in fact. I'm sorry to disappoint you. My conclusion is that Marx advocated state socialism (unless you want to call it state capitalism) as a transition from capitalism to communism and also referred to that transitional stage as the dictatorship of the proletariat. Clearly your interpretation is different. Why? I have no idea. Probably because you don't want Marx to associate with Lenin. Oh well.

[The Insurrection]

Because you are king of definitions, like Humpty Dumpty.

As long as words mean whatever you like, then of course we are wrong. Or maybe we are cheese, you can pick any word for what we are.

We, however, are speaking a language that we understand and having coherent conversations with it. You're just turning up and telling us we need to use words the same way you do.

Now, this might not have any meaning to you, but it does to me: I don't care about your Leninist definitions of 'socialism' that you can't even reference, so shut the fuck up and stop spamming this thread.
The amount of hypocrisy in that post is staggering.

[Blake's Baby]

I know, I'm such an arse for asking you to cite one single socialist that backs up your definition of the dictatorship of the proletariat as being 'socialism'.

[The Insurrection]

I know, I'm such an arse for asking you to cite one single socialist that backs up your definition of the dictatorship of the proletariat as being 'socialism'.
What is wrong with you? I have already demonstrated where Marx talks about state socialism/state capitalism (whatever you want to call it) as being the transition to communism and how that transition is also referred to as dictatorship of the proletariat. If you want to disagree with my interpretation of those things, that's fine. Obviously that's what you're doing, but continuously repeating yourself and asking the same question over and over is just insane. I am not going to continue your pointless, masturbatory competition. In my view I have adequately answered you and substantiated my contribution. Whether you believe that answer or contribution is adequate is of no consequence to me. If you want to carry on believing the things you believe then carry on doing so. I'm not interested in changing your mind or trying to compete with you for "winner" of this discussion. I do not consider debate to be about that. I have simply offered a different understanding, which conflicts with yours. Agree. Disagree. I don't give a flying fuck.

Please just come to terms with the fact that I disagree with you and move on.

[Blake's Baby]

No, I agree that you've given a link to where Marx talks about the dictatorship of the proletariat, and I've said that Engels and Wilhelm Leibknecht would argue (and I'd agree) that this is state capitalism.

The point is that you haven't yet provided any evidence that Marx (as you wrongly claimed he had, but then backed down) or Engels (as you wrongly claimed he had, but then backed down) thought the dictatorship of the proletariat was 'socialism'. We know that you do, you've been saying so for 5 pages now. What we don't know is any other socialists who do. And you haven't even cited Lenin, who is the only socialist that agrees with you, as far as I can tell.

So, care to provide sources for any socialist who thinks that 'socialsm' isn't a classless society?

[The Insurrection]

No, I agree that you've given a link to where Marx talks about the dictatorship of the proletariat

I provided more than a quote. I have demonstrated how Marx talked about a transition being the dictatorship of the proletariat and how that transition relates to socialised ownership of the means of production through state control - the defintion of state socialism.


and I've said that Engels and Wilhelm Leibknecht would argue (and I'd agree) that this is state capitalism.

Since you're obsessed with quotes, may I see some quotes where Engels and Leibknecht call what Marx describes as state capitalist.


The point is that you haven't yet provided any evidence that Marx (as you wrongly claimed he had, but then backed down) or Engels (as you wrongly claimed he had, but then backed down) thought the dictatorship of the proletariat was 'socialism'. We know that you do, you've been saying so for 5 pages now. What we don't know is any other socialists who do. And you haven't even cited Lenin, who is the only socialist that agrees with you, as far as I can tell.

So, care to provide sources for any socialist who thinks that 'socialsm' isn't a classless society?

What do you want the outcome of this debate to be?

[Blake's Baby]

...


What do you want the outcome of this debate to be?

Seriously what do I want it to be?

I want you to admit several things:

1 - Marx did not see the dictatorship of the proletariat as socialism;

2 - Lenin revised the original schema implicit in Marx (that I set out pages ago and you ignored) to equate 'the dictatorship of the proletariat' (one thing) with the 'lower phase of communism' (another thing) and both of them with 'socialism' (another thing, which partly includes 'the lower phase of communism', as he could as easily have called it 'the lower phase of socialism');

3 - in using your definition of 'socialism' you are following Lenin not Marx or Engels;

4 - many socialists including Engels (1880, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, Ch3) and Karl Leibknecht (1896, 'Our Recent Congress') and others (Ossinsky in 1918, the SPGB from 1908, Lenin himself) regard state control of the economy as 'state capitalism';

5 - your attempt on page 1 of this debate to impose your Leninist definition of socialism was rude, ignorant, unwanted and unwarranted - you have to realise that we're not all Leninists and if you try to 'correct' us by claiming Marx used a definition that he didn't, you have to back it up;

6 - you failed to back it up.

Admitting all of this, then promising not to do it again, would be a good result, I think.

Sorces:

Engels on the 'national capitalist': http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm

Liebknecht on state capitalism: http://www.marxists.org/archive/liebknecht-w/1896/08/our-congress.htm

On the many discussions about Russia, Ossinsky and Lenin on state capitalism: http://libcom.org/library/what-was-ussr-aufheben-left-communism-part-3 (and note 14); http://en.internationalism.org/ir/1977/08/communist_left

The SPGB on state capitalism: well to be honest I'm having a problem with the SPGB site at the moment, but if you check their stuff you'll see for certain that they don't regard the USSR as 'socialist', they regard it as state capitalist - http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/

[The Insurrection]

Against the claim that Marx did not differentiate between socialism and communism, I provide this:


"Abolition of the protective tariff – socialism! For it strikes at the monopoly of the industrial faction of the party of Order. Regulation of the state budget – socialism! For it strikes at the monopoly of the financial faction of the party of Order. Free admission of foreign meat and corn – socialism! For it strikes at the monopoly of the third faction of the party of Order, large landed property. The demands of the free–trade party, that is, of the most advanced English bourgeois party, appear in France as so many socialist demands. Voltaireanism socialism! For it strikes at a fourth faction of the party of Order, the Catholic. Freedom of the press, right of association, universal public education – socialism, socialism! They strike at the general monopoly of the party of Order."Against the claim that Marx differentiated proletariat dictatorship from socialism as a means of transition, I provide this quote:


the proletariat rallies more and more around revolutionary socialism, around communism, for which the bourgeoisie has itself invented the name of Blanqui. This socialism is the declaration of the permanence of the revolution, the class dictatorship of the proletariat as the necessary transit point to the abolition of class distinctions generally, to the abolition of all the relations of production on which they rest, to the abolition of all the social relations that correspond to these relations of production, to the revolutionizing of all the ideas that result from these social relations.Class Struggle in France (Part 3) (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/class-struggles-france/ch03.htm)

The fact is that Marx, in various texts, discusses and describes the dictatorship of the proletariat as being a transition from capitalism to communism in the form of state socialism. I.e. the socialised, state control of the means of production. Or, if you prefer, state capitalism.

[The Insurrection]

1 - Marx did not see the dictatorship of the proletariat as socialism;

See post above.


2 - Lenin revised the original schema implicit in Marx (that I set out pages ago and you ignored) to equate 'the dictatorship of the proletariat' (one thing) with the 'lower phase of communism' (another thing) and both of them with 'socialism' (another thing, which partly includes 'the lower phase of communism', as he could as easily have called it 'the lower phase of socialism');Marx did exactly the same in The Communist Manifesto and Critque of the Gotha Programme. It's also mentioned in Class Struggle in France.


3 - in using your definition of 'socialism' you are following Lenin not Marx or Engels;I don't follow any of them or aim to do so.


4 - many socialists including Engels (1880, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, Ch3) and Karl Leibknecht (1896, 'Our Recent Congress') and others (Ossinsky in 1918, the SPGB from 1908, Lenin himself) regard state control of the economy as 'state capitalism';I am happy to call it state capitalism. It makes Marx and Lenin and all you other bizarre Marxists easier to criticise.


5 - your attempt on page 1 of this debate to impose your Leninist definition of socialism was rude, ignorant, unwanted and unwarranted - you have to realise that we're not all Leninists and if you try to 'correct' us by claiming Marx used a definition that he didn't, you have to back it up;If you want to take criticism and conflicting ideas as some personal attack, then that's your problem. I think it's very telling of your general life attitude that you consider differing opinion to be "rude" and "ignorant". I am entitled to proposition criticism and conflict with peoples views. This is a debate forum for the purpose of discussion.


6 - you failed to back it up.No, dear, I have not "backed up" my argument to your satisfaction. Not backing up an argument and not backing up an argument to the other persons satisfaction are not the same thing. Clearly you are never going to agree with me no matter what I say.


Admitting all of this, then promising not to do it again, would be a good result, I think.Well, that's not going to happen, so you're going to have to deal with that somehow.

[Rooster]

If you want a quote of that nature then you won't find one. But read the entire text, it's clear that he talks about the state ownership of the means of production i.e. state socialism.

You can read whatever you want into it, but that doesn't make it exist. Marx and Engels didn't write in a cryptic fashion. Lets take a look at that quote you found.


"Socialized production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible. The development of production makes the existence of different classes of society thenceforth an anachronism. In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the State dies out."

Uh oh, look at that last line, "the political authority of the State dies out" because, "the existence of different classes of society [are] thenceforth an anachronism". No state under socialism because there are no longer any classes.


State power and planned economy. The bedrock definition of sate socialism.

The bedrock definition of socialism involves the elimination of classes as pulled from the quote by Engels. The purpose of the state becomes pointless and ceases to be because classes have ceased to be.

[The Insurrection]

You can read whatever you want into it, but that doesn't make it exist. Marx and Engels didn't write in a cryptic fashion. Lets take a look at that quote you found.

No I agree. That's why I find it so hard to understand why you people find interpreting it so difficult.


Uh oh, look at that last line, "the political authority of the State dies out" because, "the existence of different classes of society [are] thenceforth an anachronism". No state under socialism because there are no longer any classes.
But when reading Marx's discussions on the dictatorship of the proletariat and the transitional demands, it's clear that they are not talkign about the abolition of classes and the state ceasing to exist from the very moment of revolution, that's why they specifically talk about transition. Engels is referring to that process.

[Blake's Baby]

A second breakthrough [EDIT: oh, no wait, you just went back on the moment of clarity you had]. We may actually be getting to something that generates more light than heat here.

In the first quote, Marx doesn't say that the imposition of these policies is socialism. He (polemically) calls it socialism - but socialism meaning what?

You would I think agree that 'socialism' can relate to at least 3 things: firstly, it can relate to the organisation of society (as in 'socialism is a classless society'); secondly, it can relate to the political philosophy which esposes socialism (as in 'socialism is the political theory espoused by Karl Marx'); and thirdly it can relate to (real or percieved or frankly satirical) perceptions of the relationship between these things (as in 'the American government under Obama is practicing socialism').

Which of these do you think Marx meant? Specifically in the part where he says "...The demands of the free–trade party, that is, of the most advanced English bourgeois party, appear in France as so many socialist demands. Voltaireanism socialism!..." do you think he actually believes that the Liberals in Britain were a 'socialist' party? The liberal demands appear as socialist because any perceived threat to the power of the establishment appears to be socialism. But appearance is not always reality. Really, you shouyld know this, you are the one after all who hectored the rest of us to take a 'nuanced' look at things.

In the second quote, Marx specifically says '... around revolutionary socialism, around communism' - pretty definitely linking socialism and communism as the same thing.

You may interject that he, by using the adjective 'revolutionary', counterposes 'communism ie revolutionary socialism' with 'evolutionary/non-revolutionary/parliamentary/reformist/non-communist socialism' and if you did I'd say you have a point. He does in this extract point to a form of possible or hypothetical or inferred socialism (that he rejects, by the way, a point you nowhere address), but again does he mean to imply that there is a 'non-revolutionary socialism' that is the organisation of society? Hardly, given that he spends much of his political career denouncing and debunking the Utopians; the only socialism (organisation of society) for Marx is after the working class siezes state power, after a revolution.

So what is this 'non-revolutionary socialism' that can be inferred? As Marx talks about the working class which "...rallies more and more around revolutionary socialism, around communism.." is he again discussing the future organisation of society? How can the working class 'rally round' something that hasn't happened? They are rallying around the idea of revolutionary socialism, the political philosophy of revolutionary socialism as opposed to the political philosophies of utopian, reformist, non-revolutionary socialism, and other political philosophies too no doubt.

So... in statements such as 'socialism is a classless society' we are discussing the future organisation of society. Marx, in discussing the future organisation of society, uses 'socialism' and 'communism' interchangeably.

In discussing the existence of other schools of thought that go by the name of 'socialism' we'd all agree that there are different ideas about what 'socialism' might entail as a political theory,a nd Marx refers to some of them. He even implies that the French ruling class would regard the ideas of the British ruling class as 'socialism'. It doesn't mean he regards them as such, otherwise he's have joined the Liberal Party.

The phrase 'socialism is a classless society' however obviously doesn't apply in either of these instances of course because it's discussing the future organisation of society (1 as I outlined it above) and these are discussing the philosophy of socialism and the perception of socialism (2 & 3 above), so you arguing that 'there are classes in socialism as the future organisation of society, because Marx satirically offered the opinion that the French ruling class saw the English Liberals as supporting socialist ideas', or 'there are classes in socialism as the future organisation of society, because Marx differentiated between revolutionary socialism and utopian socialism as bodies of ideas while rejecting the latter', don't really wash I'm afraid.

I'll leave aside your silence on all the parts of what I asked for that doesn't relate to this.

[28350]

My conclusion is that Marx advocated state socialism (unless you want to call it state capitalism) as a transition from capitalism to communism and also referred to that transitional stage as the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Since you've already read Marx, might I offer these articles for your edification/reading pleasure?

http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/alternatives-to-capital/karl-marx-the-state.html

http://www.marxists.org/archive/rubel/1973/marx-anarchism.htm

[The Insurrection]

A second breakthrough [EDIT: oh, no wait, you just went back on the moment of clarity you had]. We may actually be getting to something that generates more light than heat here.

In the first quote, Marx doesn't say that the imposition of these policies is socialism. He (polemically) calls it socialism - but socialism meaning what?

You would I think agree that 'socialism' can relate to at least 3 things: firstly, it can relate to the organisation of society (as in 'socialism is a classless society'); secondly, it can relate to the political philosophy which esposes socialism (as in 'socialism is the political theory espoused by Karl Marx'); and thirdly it can relate to (real or percieved or frankly satirical) perceptions of the relationship between these things (as in 'the American government under Obama is practicing socialism').

Which of these do you think Marx meant? Specifically in the part where he says "...The demands of the free–trade party, that is, of the most advanced English bourgeois party, appear in France as so many socialist demands. Voltaireanism socialism!..." do you think he actually believes that the Liberals in Britain were a 'socialist' party? The liberal demands appear as socialist because any perceived threat to the power of the establishment appears to be socialism. But appearance is not always reality. Really, you shouyld know this, you are the one after all who hectored the rest of us to take a 'nuanced' look at things.

In the second quote, Marx specifically says '... around revolutionary socialism, around communism' - pretty definitely linking socialism and communism as the same thing.

You may interject that he, by using the adjective 'revolutionary', counterposes 'communism ie revolutionary socialism' with 'evolutionary/non-revolutionary/parliamentary/reformist/non-communist socialism' and if you did I'd say you have a point. He does in this extract point to a form of possible or hypothetical or inferred socialism (that he rejects, by the way, a point you nowhere address), but again does he mean to imply that there is a 'non-revolutionary socialism' that is the organisation of society? Hardly, given that he spends much of his political career denouncing and debunking the Utopians; the only socialism (organisation of society) for Marx is after the working class siezes state power, after a revolution.

So what is this 'non-revolutionary socialism' that can be inferred? As Marx talks about the working class which "...rallies more and more around revolutionary socialism, around communism.." is he again discussing the future organisation of society? How can the working class 'rally round' something that hasn't happened? They are rallying around the idea of revolutionary socialism, the political philosophy of revolutionary socialism as opposed to the political philosophies of utopian, reformist, non-revolutionary socialism, and other political philosophies too no doubt.

So... in statements such as 'socialism is a classless society' we are discussing the future organisation of society. Marx, in discussing the future organisation of society, uses 'socialism' and 'communism' interchangeably.

In discussing the existence of other schools of thought that go by the name of 'socialism' we'd all agree that there are different ideas about what 'socialism' might entail as a political theory,a nd Marx refers to some of them. He even implies that the French ruling class would regard the ideas of the British ruling class as 'socialism'. It doesn't mean he regards them as such, otherwise he's have joined the Liberal Party.

The phrase 'socialism is a classless society' however obviously doesn't apply in either of these instances of course because it's discussing the future organisation of society (1 as I outlined it above) and these are discussing the philosophy of socialism and the perception of socialism (2 & 3 above), so you arguing that 'there are classes in socialism as the future organisation of society, because Marx satirically offered the opinion that the French ruling class saw the English Liberals as supporting socialist ideas', or 'there are classes in socialism as the future organisation of society, because Marx differentiated between revolutionary socialism and utopian socialism as bodies of ideas while rejecting the latter', don't really wash I'm afraid.

I'll leave aside your silence on all the parts of what I asked for that doesn't relate to this.

I find it interesting that now you have been provided with the quote you've been obsessed with seeing, you are all of a sudden able to interpret subtext. So now extrapolation and inference are acceptable? You're pathetic.

[The Insurrection]

Since you've already read Marx, might I offer these articles for your edification/reading pleasure?

http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/alternatives-to-capital/karl-marx-the-state.html

http://www.marxists.org/archive/rubel/1973/marx-anarchism.htm

The arrogance of your assumptions are quite amazing. You seem to be under the illusion that the reason I don't agree with you is because I haven't enough...

[Blake's Baby]

I find it interesting that now you have been provided with the quote you've been obsessed with seeing, you are all of a sudden able to interpret subtext. So now extrapolation and inference are acceptable? You're pathetic.

OK; so you do believe that the British Liberals in the 1870s were socialists, and that the French workers were rallying round the Soviet Union 50 years in the future. Cool.

The exit is >>>> that way.

[Zanthorus]

No, Marx doesn't make a distinction between socialism and communism, not even in the Manifesto.

Yes actually, he does. The third chapter is a discussion of various kinds of 'socialism' and their relation to communism. The key here of course is that socialism and communism are here being spoken of as theoretical schools of thought. If we wanted a brief summary, we could say that the various schools of socialism which Marx names are all schools which reject the proletariat as the revolutionary subject, preferring to go for some scheme of enlightened social reform. The most telling section is when Marx discusses Utopian Socialism:

"But these Socialist and Communist publications contain also a critical element. They attack every principle of existing society. Hence, they are full of the most valuable materials for the enlightenment of the working class. The practical measures proposed in them — such as the abolition of the distinction between town and country, of the family, of the carrying on of industries for the account of private individuals, and of the wage system, the proclamation of social harmony, the conversion of the function of the state into a more superintendence of production — all these proposals point solely to the disappearance of class antagonisms which were, at that time, only just cropping up, and which, in these publications, are recognised in their earliest indistinct and undefined forms only."

Those 'practical measures' are the same measures advocated by the communists, with the difference being that the utopians planned to realise them through propaganda, whereas the communists would rely on the spontaneous organisation of the proletariat to achieve the demands through revolutionary political action. The difference between utopian socialism and communism is the most telling section of this chapter in terms of trying to draw a distinction between 'socialism' and 'communism' as different types of society in Marx's corpus, because here the socialists and communists are seen as advocating the same thing, with the difference being one of theory, socialist theory being utopian, and communist theory being critical and revolutionary. Marx makes similar points regarding theory and political acton in 'The Poverty of Philosophy', for example, in the last chapter he speaks in the voice of an imagined 'socialist' as follows on the subject of strikes:

"And we, as socialists, tell you that, apart from the money question, you will continue nonetheless to be workers, and the masters will still continue to be the masters, just as before. So no combination! No politics! For is not entering into combination engaging in politics?"

In fact the distinction made between socialist and communist theory in the Manifesto runs counter to the intentions of our friend 'The Insurrection', because it is precisely the socialists who disavow all action in the present, preferring to wait for the eventual immediate introduction of a socialist future, whereas the communists are the ones involved in all manner of nasty business like politics. The socialists spoken of here are probably closer to Anarchism than 'state socialism'.


"We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy. The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible."

Marx is here speaking of the dictatorship of the proletariat, or political rule of the working-class, if you prefer (Which I don't), as the process of accumulating all the forces of production in the hands of the state, defined as the proletariat organised as the ruling-class. He never says anything about the completion of this centralisation. This is because one of the defining features of capitalism is the contradiction between private labour and social labour, which is to say that the labour process is a process carried on for the account of private individuals, yet at the same time produces use-values which are meant for the satisfaction of social wants rather than those of the individual producer. If the labour process was carried on directly on the account of society as a whole, then society would cease to be capitalist, and since the existence of the political community as separate from the general community is a product of capitalism, the state would cease to have, on Marx's account, any 'state-like' functions upon the completion of this centralisation.

This would also, I think, be the obvious inference to take from:

"Socialized production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible. The development of production makes the existence of different classes of society thenceforth an anachronism. In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the State dies out."

Your inference that this supports your point...


State power and planned economy. The bedrock definition of sate socialism.

...seems completely unwarranted, since Engels clearly talks about the opposition between socialised production and the existence of a seperate political community. This quote would only seem to further my inference that the combination of a state power and a socially planned economy would be an anachronism for Marx and Engels.

I do however note that your real purpose in this debate seems not to be to prove that Marx distuinguished between socialism and communism, but rather to note that Marx advocated a transition period which would inolve the existence of a state, and the centralisation of the means of production in the hands of the state, which you would call socialism, although I would regard it as still obviously capitalist since such a society would still retain commodity production, wage-labour and so on. As an authoritarian, centralistic, deterministic and dogmatic advocate of revolutionary totalitarianism, I have to say, I don't give a damn.

I should point out that the reason everyone is giving you crap is because the distinction between 'socialism' and 'communism' as seperate stages of human development, rather than recognising the revolution as a process of direct transition to communism, was historically used by Stalinists to claim that class distinctions had been eradicated in the Soviet Union, and to justify putting off the transition to communism. Sometimes historical context gives seemingly semantic debates a deeper meaning that it would be wise to sensitive too instead of running around thinking that you own the English language.

As a side note, you have no idea how much Children of Bodom I got through avoiding using any banned words in this post.

[Blake's Baby]

Yes actually, he does. The third chapter is a discussion of various kinds of 'socialism' and their relation to communism. The key here of course is that socialism and communism are here being spoken of as theoretical schools of thought. If we wanted a brief summary, we could say that the various schools of socialism which Marx names are all schools which reject the proletariat as the revolutionary subject, preferring to go for some scheme of enlightened social reform. The most telling section is when Marx discusses Utopian Socialism...

You're quite right Zanthorus, and we've touched on this a couple of times in this wide-ranging argument (I won't deign to call it a debate) about definitions. In short: the statement 'socialism is a classless society' refers not to 'socialism' as body of political theory (scientific socialism, libertarian socialism, national socialism or anything else that might be called socialism) but socialism as an actual organisation of society.

This is the distinction I tried to make earlier with my seperation of socialism into three aspects (society, philosophy, perception). It's also what I was getting at when I asked how different kinds of literature ('socialist and communist' - in other words 'socialism as philosophy' again) related to the organisation of society.

The quotes The Insurrection provided refer to 'socialism' as theory (utopian socialism) and as perception (policies of the English Liberals as socialism), but not to socialism as the organisation of society, which is the use we're disputing.

[u.s.red]

Are socialism and communism two different economic and social "things?" (phenomena, type, species, realities, appearances, etc.)

[Blake's Baby]

Not to most of us, no. Those who follow Lenin's definition of socialism as being the same as the dictatorship of the proletariat and the lower stage of communism would say yes though, as does The Insurrection, who claims to be an anarchist-communist and not a Leninst at all.

I guess all those Americans who think that Sweden is 'socialist' might disagree as well.

[u.s.red]

Not to most of us, no. Those who follow Lenin's definition of socialism as being the same as the dictatorship of the proletariat and the lower stage of communism would say yes though, as does The Insurrection, who claims to be an anarchist-communist and not a Leninst at all.

I guess all those Americans who think that Sweden is 'socialist' might disagree as well.

So, for you, socialism and communism are two different names for the same thing?

[Blake's Baby]

Yes, is the short answer. Not just for me, for the 'Marxian socialists' of the SPGB and its companion parties, for Luxemburgists, for Left Communists, Council Communists, and the majority of Anarchists. Even some Trotskyists don't regard 'socialism' and 'communism' as being different.

All this of course relates to socialism as the the future organisation of society. Socialism as a political philosophy can be used to refer to anything, though I dispute the relevance of calling a political philosophy 'something socialism' if it doesn't aim for a classless communal society.

[28350]

As I understand it, communism is the movement within society to establish socialism.



The arrogance of your assumptions are quite amazing. You seem to be under the illusion that the reason I don't agree with you is because I haven't enough...

Our disagreement isn't a matter of opinion. You're saying Marx said something he didn't, which makes you wrong (regardless of whether or not he was right). I originally offered Marx's texts as a means of elucidating his views, but you feel you've read all you need to to know what's what. I then offered two articles -- shorter than the entirety of Marx, but still based on what Marx actually said -- as a means of elucidating what Marxists (people who agree with what Marx actually said) think Marx meant.

Maybe it's arrogant of me to think you didn't read the articles, or enough Marx, but the fact of the matter is you're wrong.

[Luís Henrique]

I don't even know what that's supposed to mean? Nachayev had fuck all to do with Bakunin's political thought.

Of course he had a lot to do with Bakunin's "political" thought; both reveled in conspiracies and secret societies.


They were friends briefly until Nachayev stole loads of money from him and then murdered someone.

And Bakunin was (unwittingly) instrumental to such murder, as he provided Nachaev with the instrument (a fake membership card in an inexistent organisation) that enabled Nachaev to reduce his comrades to underlings. Once one of them started having doubts about the authenticity of the document, the mechanism that resulted in his murder was put into action.


Are you trying to imply that because they were friends briefly that this some how invalidate Bakunin's politics? Because that's just stupid.

Bakunin's politics are invalid because they are about stablishing secret dictatorships through secret societies - which is also the reason he was briefly friends with Nachaev, who trusted the same methods. They are the direct opposite of democracy. And they are, yes, authoritarian.

Luís Henrique

[u.s.red]

Yes, is the short answer. Not just for me, for the 'Marxian socialists' of the SPGB and its companion parties, for Luxemburgists, for Left Communists, Council Communists, and the majority of Anarchists. Even some Trotskyists don't regard 'socialism' and 'communism' as being different.

All this of course relates to socialism as the the future organisation of society. Socialism as a political philosophy can be used to refer to anything, though I dispute the relevance of calling a political philosophy 'something socialism' if it doesn't aim for a classless communal society.

The dictatorship of the proletariat comes, then, before socialism or communism?

[Blake's Baby]

The dictatorship of the proletariat comes, then, before socialism or communism?

Not quite. The dictatorship of the proletariat comes, then, before socialism/communism, because (to Marxists, but not to Marxist-Leninists) socialism and communism are the same thing (but there's a lower and higher stage).

Marxist-Leninists believe that the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism are the same thing, but they're different from 'communism' which comes after.

I hate quoting myself but I will on this occassion:



Marx's schema for understanding the revolutionary process:

1 - revolution, which immediately sets up the dictatorship of the proletariat, in which the proletariat administers society, possibly in a fairly brutal fashion, to suppress the capitalists and win the civil war - this is a class society with a state of sorts;

2 - once capitalism has been suppressed, the state withers away and we enter the lower phase of communism - in this society, production has not yet been sufficiently rationalised to guarantee the fulfillment of all human needs - we have not yet reached the society of abundance, but this is still a classless communal society;

3 - once a situation of super-abundance has been reached we enter the higher phase of communism, when the principle of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs' is a living reality.

...

Marx would call either 2 or 3 here socialism or communism (as in the organisation of society, this is not to get into debates about political philosophy or ideology as such) and Lenin would conflate 1 and 2 and call them both socialism, in contradistinction to 3, which he would call communism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Marxist-Leninists believe that the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism are the same thing, but they're different from 'communism' which comes after.

No they don't. There's a reason why the Congress of Victors distinguished between early Bolshevik rule and the results of the First Five-Year Plan.

According to official Marxism-Leninism:

1) DOTP
2) "Socialist mode of production" up to and including "state of the whole people" politically and "developed socialism" economically
3) Lower phase of the communist mode of production
4) Higher phase of the communist mode of production

In Soviet literature, there was repeated denial of having entered any communist mode of production. Only Nikita "Communism by 1980" Khrushchev didn't make distinctions between #3 and #4. Comrade Paul Cockshott stressed the differences between the first three in this PDF (http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/preface-a4.pdf).

[u.s.red]

Not quite. The dictatorship of the proletariat comes, then, before socialism/communism, because (to Marxists, but not to Marxist-Leninists) socialism and communism are the same thing (but there's a lower and higher stage).

Marxist-Leninists believe that the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism are the same thing, but they're different from 'communism' which comes after.

I hate quoting myself but I will on this occassion:



Marx would call either 2 or 3 here socialism or communism (as in the organisation of society, this is not to get into debates about political philosophy or ideology as such) and Lenin would conflate 1 and 2 and call them both socialism, in contradistinction to 3, which he would call communism.

Two questions:

1. What economic system operates during the dictatorship of the proletariat, state capitalism, state socialism, or a combination of the two?

2. Wasn't the Russian revolution followed by the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat, which suppressed the capitalist class?

in my opinion, the soviet state collapsed, just as marx predicted; however, it was surrounded by advanced capitalism which rushed into the vacuum like a cancer, resulting in a re-growth of the tumor.

under my theory, china, cuba, vietnam, etc. have decided to allow the cancer to come back and then attempt to control it until it can be eradicated completely when the entire world enters the dictatorship of the proletariat.

sounds crazy? what other explanation is there for the collapse of the Soviet Union. One of the world's superpowers just goes away? some people argue that the Mayans collapsed without explanation; however, some prominent scholars deny that any such collapse ever took place until the Spanish invasion.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ The DOTP necessarily requires some form of state capitalism, which so many left-coms loathe. "State socialism" refers to #2 in my list. The necessity of the latter, whether it's needed between #1 and #3, is up for debate.


There are various forms utilized in the transition. Most of them involve Generalized Commodity Production, including all the examples below.

There's extensive, real state capitalism to start, not just government spending as a percentage of GDP, or mere protectionism, dirigisme, and all that crap. The core of this is a minimum of indicative planning. Worker coops "with state aid" (Lassalleans, Eisenarchers) could be promoted. With nationalizations, this is the minimum market socialism.

Then there's Lenin's "state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people" definition of "socialism," derived from Kautsky's The Social Revolution and in fact less radical than the more directives-based Stalinist economy. When applied to a particular sector, in this scenario the state owns all of the MOP in that sector (no small enterprises or even coops), but market socialism with indicative planning is still the norm. Consumers buy and sell at market prices, and more importantly, so do state enterprises (labour markets and capital markets).

When I said that "all agriculture must be based on public-paid wage labour (i.e., sovkhozization by hook and by crook)," here's an example of a sector that should be subject to this state-capitalist monopoly (which the Soviets, much less the Eastern Europeans, never had):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/national-democratization-industrial-t143922/index.html

A Fully Socialized Labour Market, whereby the state is the de jure employer of everybody, would contract all labour out to all of the above and to what's below (which the Soviets didn't have, thus having chronic problems with enterprises hoarding labour):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/supply-side-political-t152098/index.html

Then there's the directive-based economy, but one that retains money. When applied to a particular sector, in this scenario the state owns all of the MOP in that sector, and directive planning throughout that sector is applied. Indeed, there are no labour markets or capital markets. However, Generalized Commodity Production is still retained; money is still retained because things like working capital, current assets less current liabilities, need to be taken into account.

An example of a sector that should be subject to this directive-based economy is none other than the socialist polity's defense industry, thus having a Fully Socialized Defense Industry:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/us-deficit-debate-t158896/index.html?p=2191600

"Real state capitalism" and "state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people" belong to the DOTP. The "directive-based economy [...] that retains money" is in reference to the "'Socialist mode of production' up to and including 'state of the whole people' politically and 'developed socialism' economically."

[The Insurrection]

Of course he had a lot to do with Bakunin's "political" thought; both reveled in conspiracies and secret societies.

And Bakunin was (unwittingly) instrumental to such murder, as he provided Nachaev with the instrument (a fake membership card in an inexistent organisation) that enabled Nachaev to reduce his comrades to underlings. Once one of them started having doubts about the authenticity of the document, the mechanism that resulted in his murder was put into action.

Luís Henrique

For pity sake, have we not moved on from this bullshit? Can you provide evidence to substantiate these claims? I suggest you read Mark Leier's book Bakunin, where is refutes all these claims and any evidence provided to support them.

This is just slander in attempt to discredit him. I'm very surprised that someone as intelligent as you has been deceived by this nonsense.


Bakunin's politics are invalid because they are about stablishing secret dictatorships through secret societies - which is also the reason he was briefly friends with Nachaev, who trusted the same methods. No. You're completely misunderstanding Bakunin. Bakunin wrote consistently about open workers movements, and widespread mass resistance to capital and the state, and in fact he participated in building those movements as part of various revolutions across Europe. There is absolutely no evidence in Bakunin's writings or in his actions that his "politics" was about establishing anything nefarious or counter-intuitive to the autonomy of the working class. But I challenge you to present some.

Program of the International Brotherhood (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1869/program.htm) is the piece of work that is widely used by slanderers to attempt to substantiate the stupid claims that you are attempting to make. Unfortunately, they, by ignorance or premeditation, to accurately quote Bakunin. Here it is:


No political or national revolution can ever triumph unless it is transformed into a social revolution, and unless the national revolution, precisely because of its radically socialist character, which is destructive of the State, becomes a universal revolution. Since the Revolution must everywhere be achieved by the people, and since its supreme direction must always rest in the people, organized in a free federation of agricultural and industrial associations, the new revolutionary State, organized from the bottom up by revolutionary delegations embracing all the rebel countries in the name of the same principles, irrespective of old frontiers and national differences, will have as its chief objective the administration of public services, not the governing of peoples. It will constitute the new party, the alliance of the universal revolution, as opposed to the alliance of the reaction.

This revolutionary alliance excludes any idea of dictatorship and of a controlling and directive power. It is, however, necessary for the establishment of this revolutionary alliance and for the triumph of the Revolution over reaction that the unity of ideas and of revolutionary action find an organ in the midst of the popular anarchy which will be the life and the energy of the Revolution. This organ should be the secret and universal association of the International Brothers.

This association has its origin in the conviction that revolutions are never made by individuals or even by secret societies. They make themselves; they are produced by the force of circumstances, the movement of facts and events. They receive a long preparation in the deep, instinctive consciousness of the masses, then they burst forth, often seemingly triggered by trivial causes. All that a well-organized society can do is, first, to assist at the birth of a revolution by spreading among the masses ideas which give expression to their instincts, and to organize, not the army of the Revolution – the people alone should always be that army – but a sort of revolutionary general staff, composed of dedicated, energetic, intelligent individuals, sincere friends of the people above all, men neither vain nor ambitious, but capable of serving as intermediaries between the revolutionary idea and the instincts of the people.


Now, we can debate the reasons why this organisation should exist or why it should be secret, but to try and claim that Bakunin had nefarious intent to establish some secret authoritarian organisation to control revolution and dictate to the masses is roundly rejected by him in his own work; indeed in the very work he's accused of making these claims in the first place.



They are the direct opposite of democracy. And they are, yes, authoritarian.How does this logically follow? Provide some evidence where Bakunin called for these secret societies and organisations to control workers or operate to establish authority or centralised control over anything...

[The Insurrection]

You're saying Marx said something he didn't, which makes you wrong (regardless of whether or not he was right).

In your interpretation.


the fact of the matter is you're wrong.

That's a matter of opinion. I do not share yours.

[The Insurrection]

Yes actually, he does. The third chapter is a discussion of various kinds of 'socialism' and their relation to communism. The key here of course is that socialism and communism are here being spoken of as theoretical schools of thought. If we wanted a brief summary, we could say that the various schools of socialism which Marx names are all schools which reject the proletariat as the revolutionary subject, preferring to go for some scheme of enlightened social reform. The most telling section is when Marx discusses Utopian Socialism:

"But these Socialist and Communist publications contain also a critical element. They attack every principle of existing society. Hence, they are full of the most valuable materials for the enlightenment of the working class. The practical measures proposed in them — such as the abolition of the distinction between town and country, of the family, of the carrying on of industries for the account of private individuals, and of the wage system, the proclamation of social harmony, the conversion of the function of the state into a more superintendence of production — all these proposals point solely to the disappearance of class antagonisms which were, at that time, only just cropping up, and which, in these publications, are recognised in their earliest indistinct and undefined forms only."

Those 'practical measures' are the same measures advocated by the communists, with the difference being that the utopians planned to realise them through propaganda, whereas the communists would rely on the spontaneous organisation of the proletariat to achieve the demands through revolutionary political action. The difference between utopian socialism and communism is the most telling section of this chapter in terms of trying to draw a distinction between 'socialism' and 'communism' as different types of society in Marx's corpus, because here the socialists and communists are seen as advocating the same thing, with the difference being one of theory, socialist theory being utopian, and communist theory being critical and revolutionary. Marx makes similar points regarding theory and political acton in 'The Poverty of Philosophy', for example, in the last chapter he speaks in the voice of an imagined 'socialist' as follows on the subject of strikes:

"And we, as socialists, tell you that, apart from the money question, you will continue nonetheless to be workers, and the masters will still continue to be the masters, just as before. So no combination! No politics! For is not entering into combination engaging in politics?"

In fact the distinction made between socialist and communist theory in the Manifesto runs counter to the intentions of our friend 'The Insurrection', because it is precisely the socialists who disavow all action in the present, preferring to wait for the eventual immediate introduction of a socialist future, whereas the communists are the ones involved in all manner of nasty business like politics. The socialists spoken of here are probably closer to Anarchism than 'state socialism'.



Marx is here speaking of the dictatorship of the proletariat, or political rule of the working-class, if you prefer (Which I don't), as the process of accumulating all the forces of production in the hands of the state, defined as the proletariat organised as the ruling-class. He never says anything about the completion of this centralisation. This is because one of the defining features of capitalism is the contradiction between private labour and social labour, which is to say that the labour process is a process carried on for the account of private individuals, yet at the same time produces use-values which are meant for the satisfaction of social wants rather than those of the individual producer. If the labour process was carried on directly on the account of society as a whole, then society would cease to be capitalist, and since the existence of the political community as separate from the general community is a product of capitalism, the state would cease to have, on Marx's account, any 'state-like' functions upon the completion of this centralisation.

This would also, I think, be the obvious inference to take from:

"Socialized production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible. The development of production makes the existence of different classes of society thenceforth an anachronism. In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the State dies out."

Your inference that this supports your point...



...seems completely unwarranted, since Engels clearly talks about the opposition between socialised production and the existence of a seperate political community. This quote would only seem to further my inference that the combination of a state power and a socially planned economy would be an anachronism for Marx and Engels.

I do however note that your real purpose in this debate seems not to be to prove that Marx distuinguished between socialism and communism, but rather to note that Marx advocated a transition period which would inolve the existence of a state, and the centralisation of the means of production in the hands of the state, which you would call socialism, although I would regard it as still obviously capitalist since such a society would still retain commodity production, wage-labour and so on. As an authoritarian, centralistic, deterministic and dogmatic advocate of revolutionary totalitarianism, I have to say, I don't give a damn.

I should point out that the reason everyone is giving you crap is because the distinction between 'socialism' and 'communism' as seperate stages of human development, rather than recognising the revolution as a process of direct transition to communism, was historically used by Stalinists to claim that class distinctions had been eradicated in the Soviet Union, and to justify putting off the transition to communism. Sometimes historical context gives seemingly semantic debates a deeper meaning that it would be wise to sensitive too instead of running around thinking that you own the English language.

As a side note, you have no idea how much Children of Bodom I got through avoiding using any banned words in this post.

I don't have time to fully address your post right now, but I will get to it.

[Luís Henrique]

There is absolutely no evidence in Bakunin's writings or in his actions that his "politics" was about establishing anything nefarious or counter-intuitive to the autonomy of the working class. But I challenge you to present some.

From your own quote:


It is, however, necessary for the establishment of this revolutionary alliance and for the triumph of the Revolution over reaction that the unity of ideas and of revolutionary action find an organ in the midst of the popular anarchy which will be the life and the energy of the Revolution. This organ should be the secret and universal association of the International Brothers.

The "autonomy of the working class", evidently, cannot be secret.

Luís Henrique

[The Insurrection]

From your own quote:

The "autonomy of the working class", evidently, cannot be secret.

Luís Henrique

Did you actually read that quote? You are right about many things, but this you are not. You are cherry picking quotes without understanding the ideas and the text in its entirety. You are being unfair and disingenuous.

I don't know what you are trying to prove. Read the quote. Clearly Bakunin is not talking about some dictatorial organisation that controls the working class. He is talking about a group of revolutionaries who can facilitate dissent and use their experience and knowledge in which to do so. This is the same tactic that the British AF use. We can debate whether it being secret is useful (although at the time it probably was), but that one word is not evidence that Bakunin wanted to control the workers movement by some nefarious strategy and organisation. He explains quite clearly in that quote what he means and what he means is the complete opposite of what you are saying.

Read the whole thing.

[u.s.red]

As a practical matter, what economic system would operate during the dictatorship of the proletariat?

[Blake's Baby]

I think there would be elements of state capitalism, and for the rest of it, I would see rationing by need as better than either labour-time vouchers (rationing by work) or wages (rationing by price).

So unfortunately I do think we're in for a period of something that resembles 'war communism'. I think it's inevitable, but I would of course love to be wrong. It depends on how much chaos the world civil war causes, frankly. Quite a lot, in my estimation.

[Invader Zim]

Apartheid.
It can only be socialism if there is a classless nation free society, what you describe is very much a class based society

Absolutely. In my view a racism is entirely incompatable with socialism, as racism is enherently heirarchical.

[u.s.red]

To everyone except Leninists, state ownership of the means of production is state capitalism.

I have been googling through Marx and Engels but I can't find anywhere the mention of the phrase "state capitalism," although Engels, I think, comes closest when he says,

"Whilst it [capitalism] forces on more and more of the transformation of the vast means of production, already socialized, into State property, it shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production into State property."

Wouldn't it make more sense to call it "state proletarianism" or the "worker's state?"

My point is, if you argue that Marx nowhere says that the dictatorship of the proletariat is socialism, where does he say that the dictatorship of the proletariat is state capitalism?

[Blake's Baby]

He doesn't. Never said he did.

I argue it's state capitalism, based on Liebknecht, Ossinsky, Lenin, the SPGB, the Dutch/German Communist Left... and the work of Engels where he talks about the statisation of the economy and the 'national capitalist' (Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, ch 3) - I don't think he ever uses the term 'state capitalism', but unlike The Insurrection's methodology with 'well he obviously means socialism' I'm not taking a pre-existing term and changing its meaning, I'm applying a term that was later used (after 1896) to describe an earlier elaboration (1880) of the theory.

People can dispute that 'state capitalism' is an adequate description of a statised economy, but I can't see that Engels is talking about something other than a statised economy; I use 'state capitalism' for that, so I use it talking about Engels, and the dictatorship of the proletariat too. As I say, you can dispute that 'state capitalism' is a good term for that, but I consider it's a better term than 'socialism'; socialism means other things, state capitalism only means this.