The definition of Socialism

[Dogs On Acid]

So I've been arguing with these guys on the Communism page of Facebook (Lord have mercy you should listen to some of them), and as a Marxist I always believed that Socialism was used interchangeably with Communism, be it lower or higher.

These guys are telling me that the Dictatorship or the Proletariat IS Socialism. One of them is a Leninist and the other 2 are Left-Communists.

Now, if Socialism is interchangeable with Communism, and Communism can have no Classes and no State, then Socialism certainly cannot be the DotP. Engels said that the State was "Inherently Capitalist", Socialism and Capitalism cannot exist at the same time for they are different Modes of Production, as such you cannot have Capitalist entities, let alone a centralized Capitalist system, the State, under Socialism.

Now I know Leninists and Post-Leninists will give me shit, but as a Marxist I take the Beard Man's word over Lenin's.

[NorwegianCommunist]

Socialism is when the workers control the means of prouction aka dictatorship of the proletariat.
I would say that communism is when the workers control the means of prouctions in the entire world. With no classes or money.

[Dogs On Acid]

Socialism is when the workers control the means of prouction aka dictatorship of the proletariat.
I would say that communism is when the workers control the means of prouctions in the entire world. With no classes or money.

The DotP is a Capitalist revolutionary phase wherein workers put property under state control to simply take power away from private hands. It is NOT Socialism as Leninists call it.

For there to be a DotP there must be classes, and for there to be classes there must be Capitalism. Capitalism is not Socialism and thus under Socialism there cannot be DotP.

[Dogs On Acid]

Under the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels specifically state the different kinds of false socialism, one of them being Bourgeois Socialism, something that we today could call Social-Democracy or State Capitalism. This is exactly what the Soviet Union was and thus is was not Socialism, but fake socialism. In other words, Socialism in the Bourgeois sense of the word, not the Marxist.

[Red Rabbit]

I've heard 4 different definitions.

1. Communism and Socialism are the same and interchangeable (Obvious)

2. Socialism is a classless, stateless society and Communism is the path to it (Socialism is the end result, and Communism is the movement and ideology)

3. Socialism is the state before Communism (Obviously the Leninist definition)

4. State-Capitalism and Socialism are the same and interchangeable, and is the stage before Communism (Basically how Marxism-Leninism has been in practice)

[Q]

A few hours ago, I made a post about this somewhere else (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&gmid=48066#gmessage48066):


Note that there are different views as to the dotp -> socialism -> communism view as separate phases. This article (http://cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1003992) might help shed some light on this issue. It essentially argues that such separate phases really don't exist. A quote:


The conclusion from these points is that, assuming the proletariat takes political power in the next 40-50 years, there will still be a substantial period of transition which falls between the complete overthrow of the global capitalist state system and the fully collective appropriation of the means of production (communism). This period of transition is properly the dictatorship of the proletariat, the class rule of the proletariat over the surviving petty bourgeoisie and small capital, in a contradictory economic order in which those means of production which the capitalists have already ‘socialised’ are collectively appropriated, but the participants in this collective appropriation have to trade with substantial groups of petty bourgeois and some small capitalists, who are politically subordinated to the proletarian majority.

The period can also be called for short-hand ‘socialism’, as we do in the CPGB Draft programme, provided it is clear that by ‘socialism’ we mean this transitional period of working class rule over other subsisting classes, and not a separate stage standing between the dictatorship of the proletariat and communism. ‘Dictatorship of the proletariat’ is in my opinion scientifically superior because it expresses the fact that the petty bourgeoisie and small capital continue to exist in this period, but are institutionally subordinated to the proletariat as a class.
(italic by author. bold by me).

I recommend the reading whole article.

So socialism/dotp is where the working class seize political power and start to transform society towards communism. Note: "transform" here as a key word as socialism is not a distinct mode of production but merely the transition between capitalism and communism. Marx called this the "lower phase of communism" where the new society still has the "birthmarks of the old". As for communism, or what Marx called the "higher phase of communism", here we enter the stage where the workers "state" collapses into society as class distinctions cease to exist because we enter into a society of free producers; hence why communism is classless and stateless.

In summary: There is no separation between the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and "socialism" as they both represent the transition between capitalism and communism.

[Manic Impressive]

"there will still be a substantial period of transition which falls between the complete overthrow of the global capitalist state system and the fully collective appropriation of the means of production (communism)."

This is also a massive assumption. One which I and many others do not accept.

[Q]

"there will still be a substantial period of transition which falls between the complete overthrow of the global capitalist state system and the fully collective appropriation of the means of production (communism)."

This is also a massive assumption. One which I and many others do not accept.

This touches on the core point of the article:


Britain is historically perhaps the country in which capitalist development has gone furthest. Yet there are above 4.5 million small businesses, so that the ‘classic’ petty bourgeoisie and small capitalists together amount to at least 14.5% of the working-age population. This leaves aside altogether for the moment the question of skills as intellectual property rights and the employed middle classes. For reasons of differences of fertility and mortality between classes, the percentage of children and youth of the petty bourgeoisie is lower, and the percentage of petty bourgeois of pensionable age is higher.

...

Under capitalism, small private property in skills or information can in some cases be used to run a small business (like plumbers, dentists or practising lawyers). Similarly, a family farm (or peasant holding) does not just consist of land. It also involves movable capital (animals, etc) and a very wide range of skills. Adam Smith made the point that the farmer or farmworker needs more skills than the urban specialist artisan.[9]

In other cases, the collective monopoly of the skill held by a group of people allows them in wage bargaining to insist on some sort of premium over the wage. This premium can be in money; or it can be in better working conditions (white-collar workers), in partial freedom from managerial control, or in managerial control over others.

The classical petty bourgeois “self-exploit”: that is, they and their family members often work longer hours for less reward than employed workers. They do so partly in the hope of making the breakthrough to getting rich - for most as illusory as buying lottery tickets. But also, and perhaps mainly, they prefer the (limited) control which “running their own business” gives them to the subordination of working for wages. This includes control over family members who help in the business - hence petty bourgeois patriarchalism; it also involves the exclusion of others from decision-making.

The employed middle class share the classical petty bourgeois aspiration to ‘make it big’, in this case the hope of climbing the career pyramid to one of the few places at the top. They also share the preference for control over subordination. In their case, however, control is immediately exercised over others - their subordinates. And what others are to be excluded from is access to information and decision-making. Bureaucrats and managers defend their ‘turf’ against all-comers.

...

In sum. Suppose the working class takes power in Europe in the next period. The result will not be an immediate overcoming of class. It will be a contradictory regime. Though big capital will be collectivised, there will remain class conflict between the proletariat and what are now the middle classes: both the ‘classic’ petty bourgeoisie and small capital, and employed middle class. The political forms we fight for as the immediate alternative to capitalist rule have to be able to reflect that continuing class conflict and to allow the proletariat to organise for it - including against ‘its own’ state.

So: While the "big bourgeoisie" will most likely cease to exist pretty soon after a revolution, the petit-bourgeoisie and middle classes (those holding monopolies on skills and knowledge) can only be assimilated into the proletariat proper part by part and given that these layers are a significant part of the population, this will take some time (opinions differ on how long, I personally don't believe in decades or even centuries as posed by some others here on this board). This is the very essence of the dictatorship of the proletariat, or socialism: It's class hegemony over class society with the aim of ending it.

Again, I recommend the whole article as opposed to replying to parts of it.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It's class hegemony over class society with the aim of ending it.

^Just worth repeating.



Engels said that the State was "Inherently Capitalist", Socialism and Capitalism cannot exist at the same time for they are different Modes of Production, as such you cannot have Capitalist entities, let alone a centralized Capitalist system, the State, under Socialism.
...
For there to be a DotP there must be classes, and for there to be classes there must be Capitalism.

I disagree with your interpretation of some of these Marx/Engels positions.

The MODERN state is inherently capitalist as opposed to a neutral body for managing different class interests as the state is viewed by social-democrats and liberals. So the capitalist state can not be used as a tool for anything but managing capitalism. Engels argued explicitly that while class struggle can change the balance of forces in a society and cause a state to be "more fair" to the non-ruling class, it is ultimately a tool for the current ruling class.

States are not inherently centralized either - feudal states for example. Marx argued that a more centralized and powerful (nation) state was a development of and needed by the capitalist system.

And they certaintly did not think that the state as an institution in general was "inherently capitalist" they argued it was the inherently due to the division of society into classes and therefore the inability to have "universal governance" since people didn't universally share the same interests in how to organize society. They spent a great deal of time looking at ancient and feudal class relations and how this informed the development of European states in those system.

So they argued that it was the result of class antagonisms and since the act of revolution will not instantly transform social relations, but will necessarily be a process in which workers cooperatively transform and re-organize society from a profit based society to a cooperative society, some class differences will likely remain in the short term. Workers will need to exert their interests over professionals, bureaucrats, small shop-owners, academics, and so on. Of course their interests are to do away with exploitation so this is why workers class rule could possibly end class rule as Q said.

Without class antagonisms, then society wouldn't need a dominant class politics over society, things could simply be worked out on a mutual and as-needed basis.

[Rooster]

There's this quote from 1844 manuscripts.

"Socialism is man’s positive self-consciousness, no longer mediated through the abolition of religion, just as real life is man’s positive reality, no longer mediated through the abolition of private property, through communism. Communism is the position as the negation of the negation, and is hence the actual phase necessary for the next stage of historical development in the process of human emancipation and rehabilitation. Communism is the necessary form and the dynamic principle of the immediate future, but communism as such is not the goal of human development, the form of human society."

[Book O'Dead]

Socialism: A classless, stateless society in which the means of production are socially owned and democratically controlled by the workers directly from their workplaces, where production is carried out to satisfy the needs and wants of society.

[Mr. Natural]

Dogs On Acid, You have a fun handle. I don't share with my dog, by the way.

The dictatorship of the proletariat, as others have noted, is a transitional period between capitalism's class society and classless communism. Here are our two Bearded Men on this in the Manifesto: "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 degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize 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 of productive forces as rapidly as possible .... In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."

My red-green best to you, Portugal, and your cool dogs.

[daft punk]

Socialism can be used interchangeably with communism, or you can think of socialism as being the early stages of communism.

But before that there is a transition, the DOTP, where the workers organisations seize power, but a socialist economy has not been built. Eg in Russia after the revolution. Lenin said it would take 2 or 3 generations to get to socialism. Socialism therefore comes after the DOTP. Of course there is no clearcut boundary. In an advanced country socialism could happen very quickly after a revolution, especially if it happened in several advanced countries in quick succession.

Best not to get too bogged down in terminology. The main thing is the practicalities, the balance of class forces, and so on.

"But the scientific distinction between socialism and communism is clear. What is usually called socialism was termed by marx the "first", or lower, phase of communist society. Insofar as the means of production becomes common property, the word "communism" is also applicable here, providing we do not forget that this is not complete communism."

"We know that we cannot establish a socialist order now—God grant that it may be established in our country in our children’s time, or perhaps in our grandchildren’s time."
Lenin

Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky were not too hung up on terminology which changes over time anyway. The word communism is best avoided these days because the Stalinists gave it a bad name. And the DOTP sound totally out of date to a modern workers.

Therefore it is best to speak of a transition to socialism and that's it.

[Anarpest]

Isn't this primarily a matter of semantics as formulated? I don't believe that Marx had made a distinction for most of his time as a socialist, but surely the question is what they mean by identifying the workers' state with 'socialism'? I don't accept the workers' state, but at the same time it seems less problematic by itself than when it's treated as a separate society (or 'mode of production' in Marxist terms), 'socialism,' and ultimately its abolition is put down simply to good will. If it is an autonomous society, which functions in its own way, then there is no real reason why the struggle for it would be connected with the struggle for the abolition of the state, given that it has no real, inherent reason to be abolished, or revolutionary class, etc. It's basically the joke about how the Soviet state promised to dissolve itself... eventually... except now made into a theory by identifying it with an independent epoch of social history.

I mean, I guess that some of this might be more of a concern for an anarchist than a Marxist, but I think that even Marx saw the workers' state as a means rather than an end or any kind of independent society functioning in its own way, which is what the usual Leninist and Stalinist mythologies associated it with by naming it 'socialism.' Once thus established, it is a perfectly good excuse to keep a so-called 'workers' state' in place, identified as 'socialism' by apparent characteristics of 'socialism' like nationalization and nominal workers' democracy, with no incentive to end it. Terms birthed in the context of justifying extended Party rule tend to carry that stain to the grave.


There's this quote from 1844 manuscripts.

Socialism is man’s positive self-consciousness, no longer mediated through the abolition of religion, just as real life is man’s positive reality, no longer mediated through the abolition of private property, through communism. Communism is the position as the negation of the negation, and is hence the actual phase necessary for the next stage of historical development in the process of human emancipation and rehabilitation. Communism is the necessary form and the dynamic principle of the immediate future, but communism as such is not the goal of human development, the form of human society.

I'm fairly sure that that was only how he used the term in those early texts. It is somewhat amusing, though, in that it seems to reverse the traditional Leninist distinction.

[daft punk]

If it is an autonomous society, which functions in its own way, then there is no real reason why the struggle for it would be connected with the struggle for the abolition of the state, given that it has no real, inherent reason to be abolished, or revolutionary class, etc.

When there is only one class the need for the state vanishes.






I mean, I guess that some of this might be more of a concern for an anarchist than a Marxist, but I think that even Marx saw the workers' state as a means rather than an end or any kind of independent society functioning in its own way, which is what the usual Leninist and Stalinist mythologies associated it with by naming it 'socialism.'

Lenin's view was basically the same as Marx and Engels as far as I can tell. Lenin believed i the eventual withering away of the State. Stalin cannot be lumped remotely with Lenin. Stalin was the personification of a counter-revolution which meant the negation of Leninism.



Once thus established, it is a perfectly good excuse to keep a so-called 'workers' state' in place, identified as 'socialism' by apparent characteristics of 'socialism' like nationalization and nominal workers' democracy, with no incentive to end it. Terms birthed in the context of justifying extended Party rule tend to carry that stain to the grave.



You need to read some Trotsky. Stalinism was not a continuation of Leninism, it was a political counter-revolution due to the impossibility of socialism in a backward country in isolation.

[Dogs On Acid]

I think we can all agree (except Leninists), that:

- Socialism is not the DotP.
- The DotP is simply a trasitional stage of Capitalism, into Communism, a period of workers domination of Capital, under Capitalism.
- Socialism, if not the DotP, cannot be Capitalism.

Now, here's where the contradictions between ideologies arise. Leninists equate Socialism with State Capitalism (the DotP), because Lenin said so, and defined the Russia under his rule as State Capitalist, so thus Socialist. Yet he also said we wouldn't have socialism for a few generations. So what is his definition of Socialism after all?

Under Socialism can there be a State? Well for Leninists yes, because it's the DotP and thus workers put property under State power. But this is not Lower Communism, so then Socialism has nothing to do with Lower or Higher Communism for Leninists. In other words, communism is not socialism.

[Railyon]

Leninists equate Socialism with State Capitalism (the DotP)

I hope by that you don't mean to imply the DotP is state capitalism.

[Grenzer]

I think you're misunderstanding something here. If one accepts that socialism and communism are distinct(I do not, I think that it's just bullshit concocted by certain people to advance their reformist agendas), then the dictatorship of the proletariat would exist under socialism. In the lower phase of communism the dictatorship of the proletariat would certainly exist, as class distinctions may not be entirely gone.

You can have the dictatorship of the proletariat, but not have socialism and not even be on the road to socialism. Marx cited the Paris Commune as an example of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and also stated that it was "not socialist, nor could it have been" so I think it would be wrong to say that it's transitional.

As I mentioned earlier, Lenin late in his life defined socialism as "state capitalism made to serve the people" essentially, and I see no reason to take him at his word. I think Lenin was pretty solid all the way up to 1918, but then he goes very downhill, especially in the 1920's where I believe he was rapidly become an opportunist, one might even go as far as to say a counter-revolutionary. I think he came up with the bullshit about state capitalism being socialism because he wanted to justify the degeneration of the revolution despite the fact that on some level he probably knew the revolution was fucked.

So in short, the DOTP is a form of rule, which exists somewhat independently of the economic system. It can exist under capitalism, and it can exist under socialism depending on how you define it.

[Grenzer]

I hope by that you don't mean to imply the DotP is state capitalism.

I think he's saying that that's what Lenin was implying, therefore Lenin was wrong.

[Q]

So in short, the DOTP is a form of rule, which exists somewhat independently of the economic system. It can exist under capitalism, and it can exist under socialism depending on how you define it.

I think this is an important point: The dictatorship of the proletariat is a form of political rule (it expresses a class hegemony as counterposed to the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" that we have under capitalism) whereas communism is a mode of production. Put in Lenin's terms: Socialism then is the transition between capitalism and communism. Put in Marx's terms: Socialism and communism are the same thing, thus we have the lower phase of communism being a transition between capitalism and the higher phase of communism.

So, to see it from a perspective of modes of production we have capitalism, a transitionary phase (which already starts within capitalism to an extent btw, but let's not make things more difficult than they apparently already are) and communism. From a perspective of class rule overlaid on top of that, the DotP starts from the moment the working class seizes power and thus coincides with the start of socialism (being the transitionary phase, filled with its own contradictions of a dieing class society).

So, when Marx said that the Paris Commune was not socialist, nor could it ever be, we must take into account that he was not talking about the transitionary aspect here (at least, as far as I'm aware) but about full blown communism. And he was obviously right in that.

[Dogs On Acid]

I think this is an important point: The dictatorship of the proletariat is a form of political rule (it expresses a class hegemony as counterposed to the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" that we have under capitalism) whereas communism is a mode of production. Put in Lenin's terms: Socialism then is the transition between capitalism and communism. Put in Marx's terms: Socialism and communism are the same thing, thus we have the lower phase of communism being a transition between capitalism and the higher phase of communism.

So, to see it from a perspective of modes of production we have capitalism, a transitionary phase (which already starts within capitalism to an extent btw, but let's not make things more difficult than they apparently already are) and communism. From a perspective of class rule overlaid on top of that, the DotP starts from the moment the working class seizes power and thus coincides with the start of socialism (being the transitionary phase, filled with its own contradictions of a dieing class society).

So, when Marx said that the Paris Commune was not socialist, nor could it ever be, we must take into account that he was not talking about the transitionary aspect here (at least, as far as I'm aware) but about full blown communism. And he was obviously right in that.

To be honest I don't see why any non-Leninist should accept this "socialism is transition" thing. It only distorts marx's words and is counterproductive because we are basically calling a Capitalist system "Socialism", which is in classical Marxism supposed to mean a classless society. It gives bourgeois intellectuals flexibility to use the word Socialism to attack us, or even call Social-Democracy by the name of "Socialism" to confuse the masses.

Let's keep it Marxist, shall we?

[Q]

To be honest I don't see why any non-Leninist should accept this "socialism is transition" thing.
It's a play with words and definitions. We should be clear as to what we mean and I see little issue with using different words for the same concepts.


It only distorts marx's words
Marxists do not cling to the holy scriptures of Marx (or Lenin for that matter).


and is counterproductive because we are basically calling a Capitalist system "Socialism"
No, we are not. I don't see where you're getting this from anything I've said so far.


which is in classical Marxism supposed to mean a classless society.
Again, it is a matter of definitions and as long as we're clear on what we mean, I don't see the issue really. But if you insist I can use the term "lower phase of communism" from now on, it's just a lot more to write down each time.


It gives bourgeois intellectuals flexibility to use the word Socialism to attack us, or even call Social-Democracy by the name of "Socialism" to confuse the masses.
Again, I don't see the issue. Capitalists will attack communist ideas regardless of what we do or say. We can only elaborate our case through open debate and trying to get other workers to think through these concepts.


Let's keep it Marxist, shall we?
You mean scientific as opposed to dogmatically clinging to holy scriptures?

[Kyu Six]

Lenin's view was basically the same as Marx and Engels as far as I can tell. Lenin believed i the eventual withering away of the State. Stalin cannot be lumped remotely with Lenin. Stalin was the personification of a counter-revolution which meant the negation of Leninism.

You need to read some Trotsky. Stalinism was not a continuation of Leninism, it was a political counter-revolution due to the impossibility of socialism in a backward country in isolation.

Or, Stalin continued to implement the theories and policies of Lenin, who delegated more responsibilities to Stalin, and in fact, appointed him General Secretary of the CPSU to counter Trotsky, who was an opportunist and demagogue who needed to be isolated and was eventually exiled and sentenced to death for his treason.

There is no disputing that Lenin and Trotsky were at odds and that Lenin moved to have Stalin appointed General Secretary of the CPSU. Anything about Trotsky being the true heir to Lenin is simply bollocks.

[Deicide]

Socialism was whatever Comrade Stalin said it was.

[Q]

Or, Stalin continued to implement the theories and policies of Lenin, who delegated more responsibilities to Stalin, and in fact, appointed him General Secretary of the CPSU to counter Trotsky, who was an opportunist and demagogue who needed to be isolated and was eventually exiled and sentenced to death for his treason.

There is no disputing that Lenin and Trotsky were at odds and that Lenin moved to have Stalin appointed General Secretary of the CPSU. Anything about Trotsky being the true heir to Lenin is simply bollocks.

Not this again...

[Deicide]

Or, Stalin continued to implement the theories and policies of Lenin, who delegated more responsibilities to Stalin, and in fact, appointed him General Secretary of the CPSU to counter Trotsky, who was an opportunist and demagogue who needed to be isolated and was eventually exiled and sentenced to death for his treason.


There is no disputing that Lenin and Trotsky were at odds and that Lenin moved to have Stalin appointed General Secretary of the CPSU. Anything about Trotsky being the true heir to Lenin is simply bollocks.

Letter to the Congress by Lenin.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/congress.htm

But of course, why do I bother? Taking into account that you're a deluded Stalinist, you'll discover some way of deluding yourself even further, probably by discarding this as ''Trotskyist'' propaganda or some other blah blah blah.


Comrade Stalin, having become Secretary-General, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution. Comrade Trotsky, on the other hand, as his struggle against the C.C. on the question of the People's Commissariat of Communications has already proved, is distinguished not only by outstanding ability. He is personally perhaps the most capable man in the present C.C., but he has displayed excessive self-assurance and shown excessive preoccupation with the purely administrative side of the work.

These two qualities of the two outstanding leaders of the present C.C. can inadvertently lead to a split, and if our Party does not take steps to avert this, the split may come unexpectedly.


Stalin is too rude and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealing among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a Secretary-General. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing another man in his stead who in all other respects differs from Comrade Stalin in having only one advantage, namely, that of being more tolerant, more loyal, more polite and more considerate to the comrades, less capricious, etc. This circumstance may appear to be a negligible detail. But I think that from the standpoint of safeguards against a split and from the standpoint of what I wrote above about the relationship between Stalin and Trotsky it is not a [minor] detail, but it is a detail which can assume decisive importance.

[Kyu Six]

Lenin's beef with Stalin was his personality. Notice that he wants someone who is in all other respects the same as Stalin! His ideology was not the problem.

Trotsky, on the other hand, had faulty ideology. Lenin even went so far as to call him a Menshevik. Lenin may have admired Trotsky's tact over Stalin, but Stalin had the better revolutionary credentials and sound ideology.

[Dogs On Acid]

Lenin's beef with Stalin was his personality. Notice that he wants someone who is in all other respects the same as Stalin! His ideology was not the problem.

Trotsky, on the other hand, had faulty ideology. Lenin even went so far as to call him a Menshevik. Lenin may have admired Trotsky's tact over Stalin, but Stalin had the better revolutionary credentials and sound ideology.

If Lenin and Stalin were so close ideologically then why didn't Lenin purge the whole of the Politburo (excluding a handful) instead of leaving it to Uncle Joe?

[ArrowLance]

Why should Marx have a monopoly on leftist definitions?

[Dogs On Acid]

Why should Marx have a monopoly on leftist definitions?

Why shouldn't he? Anything based on Marxism should supposedly maintain it's definitions :rolleyes:

And Q, when I said let's keep thing Marxist I mean exactly let's keep things scientific. Did Einstein twist Newton's definitions into his own? No. Because that's not very correct.

[Q]

And Q, when I said let's keep thing Marxist I mean exactly let's keep things scientific. Did Einstein twist Newton's definitions into his own? No. Because that's not very correct.
Actually, yes, Einstein did redefine gravity and all that :D

[robbo203]

So I've been arguing with these guys on the Communism page of Facebook (Lord have mercy you should listen to some of them), and as a Marxist I always believed that Socialism was used interchangeably with Communism, be it lower or higher.

These guys are telling me that the Dictatorship or the Proletariat IS Socialism. One of them is a Leninist and the other 2 are Left-Communists.

Now, if Socialism is interchangeable with Communism, and Communism can have no Classes and no State, then Socialism certainly cannot be the DotP. Engels said that the State was "Inherently Capitalist", Socialism and Capitalism cannot exist at the same time for they are different Modes of Production, as such you cannot have Capitalist entities, let alone a centralized Capitalist system, the State, under Socialism.

Now I know Leninists and Post-Leninists will give me shit, but as a Marxist I take the Beard Man's word over Lenin's.

The point that needs to be recognised and acknowleged is that Leninism represents quite a significant departure from Marxism - in fact, a whole new political ideological worldview or paradigm quite distinct from Marxism. Marxism-Leninism, I would contend, is an oxymoron - a contradictions in terms.

Let me make myself clear here. I have no doubt that Lenin, coming out of the whole social democratic tradition, did indeed have considerable sympathy for, and strongly identified with, a Marxian worldview - that is pretty obvious if you read his stuff. He grasped very well the essence of a communist society and wrote lucidly on the matter. He understood very well the point that in traditional Marxian usage "socialism" and "communism" were interchangeable terms. Stalin too understood this point and in his 1906 pamphlet Anarchism or Socialism described socialism as a moneyless wageless stateless society. Bogdanoff was another one who understood this well enough . His key text A Short Course of Economic Science (1897) talked of socialism as being “the highest stage of society we can conceive”. Bogdanoff's work was widely used in Bolshevik circles.

Within the wider Social Democratic movement, however, the seeds of decay were already beginning sprout even before the turn of the century. While there was indeed explicit lip service paid to the maximum goal of a socialist or communist society, this was increasingly set aside in pursuit of a reformist agenda - the minimum progamme. What was not grasped was the simple fact that you cannot strive both to mend capitalism and end capitalism . One must give way to the other as the "impossibilists" had presciently warned at the time. The social democratic parties opting to "mend capitalism" all succumbed without exception to the poison of capitalist ideology and, ignominiously, the Second International broke up with different parties talking sides in the capitalist bloodbath that was the First World war.

The Bolsheviks were, I would argue, an expression of this same reformist current that became absolutely dominant among the Social Democratic parties in general but with a peculiar twist. The Bolsheviks came to power not on the basis of mass support for genuine socialism - Lenin clearly recognised that there was no signficant support for this - but on a programme of reforms best summed up by the slogan "peace land and bread". One might aptly decribe Bolshevism as a more extreme version of reformism combined with an attachment to full blooded state capitalism

While other Social Democratic parties were increasingly abandoning the pursuit of a genuine sociualist society - Kautsky of the SPD, for example the so called "pope of Marxism" mutated over the years into a mere reformist - the Bolsheviks seemed to retain a commitment, at least on paper, to the realistion of a socialist/communist society.

I would argue, however, that this paper commitment to socialism was simply an ideological tool by which they could make more palatable the development of state capitalism, a form of opportunism to tap into worker discontent. Always, with Lenin , the carrot of "socialism" is held up tantalising as the end destination - how indefinite (which effectively means never) - of a process of capitalist development as if mechanically and imperceptably state capitalism would somehow lead into socialism. This festishisation of "transitionism" as opposed to conscious pursuit of a clear goal is all to evident amongst Leninists who have the nerve to lecture socialists on the need for " realism" forever reminding us that you cant establish socialism "overnight" (as though we would all be tucked away in our beds asleep when it happened which actually is much more in keeping with their own gradualistic notion of "revolution"). No, you cant establish socialism "overnight" and nobody ever said you could - it takes time to build up a mass conscious socialist majority. Not that the Bolsheviks were prepared to wait or work towards that

Of course there was no chance of the Bolsheviks introducing socialism at all. You cannot bring about a socialist society by social engineering. Without mass conscious support for a socialist society it can't happen and, of course, such support simply did not exist. This was the pretext for Lenin's theory of the Vanguard Party. An enlightened socialist minority would capture power in advance of a majority becoming socialist and somehow steer society in a "socialist" direction. But there is no way this could happen. None at all. So if you cannot introduce socialism because a majority do not yet want it then you are lumbered with capitalism and the task of administering capitalism. Thats being so, the vanguard will then perforce have to take the side of capital against the interests of wage labour. Thats the only way capitalism can operatre - in the interestsof capital.

This is where the Boslevhiks tried to square the ciurcle even to the extent of radically redefining socialism - to make it seem more "plausable". Lenin's own attempts at reinterpreting socialism were confusing to say the least. On the one hand, he equated socialism with the Marx's first phase of communism - a distinction Marx never made - and then went on to describe this lower phase in terms that were completely at variance with Marx's. Thus where Marx advocated a system of Labour vouchers in this lower phase, Lenin in The State and Revolution talked of "all citizens being transformed into hired employees of the state" when the very existence of a state was incompatible with communism in Marx's view - be it the lower phase or the higher phase of communism(http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm) Note how Lenin tried thereby to associated state capitalism with socialism/communism in trojan horse fashion

On the other hand, in the same year that saw publication of The State and Revolution, Lenin contradicted himself by putting forward yet another definition of socialism. In The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It,(1917) he now argued that "socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly". Now this is clearly a contradiction: How socialism can possibly be both the "lower phase of communism" AND a state capitalist monopoly (albeit one alledgedly made to serve the interests of the whole people) defies reason . It simply makes no sense at all.

These Leninist attempts to cynically redefine socialism in terms that make it more compatible with the development of state capitalism is a hallmark of Leninism. In the end it was doomed to failure along with Leninism itself. The "socialistic" nomenclature that the Soviet state clung was a sham and a lie and decade by decade it became increasingly to be seen so. "Socialism" had been turned into an empty dogma to be ritualistically invoked by some politburo fat cat now and then from the podium at Red Square's militaristic display of killing machines each May Day but nobody really believed in it anymore except the odd die-hard Stalinists.

Even - or should I sayt especially - Lenin's glorious "Vanguard" no longer believed in what it called "socialism" and it was from the ranks of the state capitalist class itself - irony of ironies! - that tiny elite that profited so handsomely all those yeas under Soviet rule from the rank exploitation of the Russian workers - that a "revolution from above" was carried out that overthow "socialism".

One could weep at the sheer waste of it all - all those years when millions upon millions of workers, no doubt with the very best of intentions, followed the siren calls of Leninist state capitalism only to find their hopes crushed and their dreams turned into disillusionment and resigned apathy

The tragedy is that we still find even today people today on this forum that cling to the utterly discredited ideas of leninism and all its offshoots. As Marx said, history repeats itself "first as tragedy, then as farce" (The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon)

[Rooster]

I don't think calling the transitional phase from capitalism to socialism is very satisfactory. Firstly, all society is in transition. Secondly, socialisation is a process that happens within capitalism. Production becomes socialised while the products are appropriated privately. I can't think of a situation between private appropriation by capitalists and one where appropriation is social.

[ArrowLance]

Why shouldn't he? Anything based on Marxism should supposedly maintain it's definitions :rolleyes:

And Q, when I said let's keep thing Marxist I mean exactly let's keep things scientific. Did Einstein twist Newton's definitions into his own? No. Because that's not very correct.

I see, so instead of using language in a useful way that reflects current situations we should allow one man who is far from the end all of leftism and who hasn't given us an update in a hundred years dictate it.

[Dogs On Acid]

Actually, yes, Einstein did redefine gravity and all that :D

One thing is revision, another thing is redefinition. It's quite simple to understand that Lenin called the Soviet Union Socialist so it seemed like the revolution was in some way not totally fucked and bourgeois. He twisted the term Socialism not scientifically, but in his own interest.

[Jimmie Higgins]

One thing is revision, another thing is redefinition. It's quite simple to understand that Lenin called the Soviet Union Socialist so it seemed like the revolution was in some way not totally fucked and bourgeois. He twisted the term Socialism not scientifically, but in his own interest.I think the difficulty in the way you are formulating this is that you are trying to find arguments to prove a historical conclusion, rather than trying to draw conclusions from history.

There would have been no need to argue for socialism or the power of worker councils if the goal of the Bolsheviks was a bourgeois government since it would have been much easier just to take a minority of seats in the Parliament and work on it from there.