Just one thing I'm confused about

[Comrades Unite!]

This is about ''The Communist Manifesto''.
I'm confused about the bit at the end of CH.2(The list)
When Marx&Engels talk about the state who do they mean?
I know the state means what runs the country but who are the state that they speak of?, Is it the proletariat? or some sort of Communist Party?

I know it's probably a stupid question but its the only bit bugging me about the CM.
All answers appreciated :).

[jookyle]

The state is an institution of oppression. As it it exists now, the state(as stated by Marx) is the executive branch of the bourgeois. After the revolution the state still works as an oppressive institution but under the control of the proletariat, what Marx calls the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is because land,wealth, resources, etc. are redistributed from the bourgeois. And eventually, if all goes well, the state ceses to exist as this institution as it will no longer be needed.

[Comrades Unite!]

The state is an institution of oppression. As it it exists now, the state(as stated by Marx) is the executive branch of the bourgeois. After the revolution the state still works as an oppressive institution but under the control of the proletariat, what Marx calls the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is because land,wealth, resources, etc. are redistributed from the bourgeois. And eventually, if all goes well, the state ceses to exist as this institution as it will no longer be needed.

Ah now that's cleared up! Thanks!
So that's the Socialist part which then progresses into Communism which abolishes the state,money and classes,am I correct there?

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Not at all a stupid question.
In the manifesto it is the existing state-apparatus Marx & Engels are talking about. They initially thought the proletarians could simply take over the existing state-machinery during the revolution and use it for their own goals, against the capitalist class.
It was later the experience of the Paris Commune which lead them to a different conclusion. They saw that the proletariat could not just take over the bourgeois instruments of oppression, but had to destroy them and create new ones which were suited for the rule of the proletariat. Marx talks about this in his writings on the Paris Commune and Engels also stresses this conclusion in a famous preface he wrote for the Manifesto in the 1870´s.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

jookyle had a good response, so I will just add some things to his. The "list" was subject to change for the different conditions of different countries, as Marx notes in some of the prefaces to the manifesto. What Marx claims as the state is the "dictatorship of the proletariat" in which the proletariat would take the means of state power to suppress counter-revolutionaries and be a transitional period before the classless and stateless society of communism. There are different views on the make-up of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Engels claimed that the Paris Commune was an example of the dictatorship of the proletariat and that such a dictatorship would not be in a traditional sense but a society run by the workers' themselves. Many see the soviet system and workers' councils as the organs of the dictatorship of the proletariat and of communist rule while others primarily see the party as the organ of rule.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=932

[Comrades Unite!]

Thanks all of you:).
Helpful responses from all of you.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Ah now that's cleared up! Thanks!
So that's the Socialist part which then progresses into Communism which abolishes the state,money and classes,am I correct there?
Yes, that´s right.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

For an easier read you might want to look into the "Principals of Communism" by Friedrich Engles;it says the same thing the manifesto does but in easier terms.

[Koba Junior]

The first act by virtue of which the state really constitutes itself the representative of society as a whole—the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society—is, at the same time, its last independent act as a state. The state interference in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then ceases of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and by the direction of the processes of production. The state is not ‘abolished,’ it withers away.
Friedrich Engels, Anti-Duhring [emphasis added].


The two emphasized passages illustrate what to expect during the developmental transition from socialism to communism.

[Aurora]

Ah now that's cleared up! Thanks!
So that's the Socialist part which then progresses into Communism which abolishes the state,money and classes,am I correct there?
Actually it's what Marx and Engels called the dictatorship of the proletariat which is distinct from socialism. The proletarian dictatorship is simply the political rule of the working class and is between capitalism and socialism, the measures in the Communist Manifesto are immediate measures to be carried out by the working class in order to move away from capitalism and towards socialism.

In the lower phase of communism(sometimes called socialism) there wont be any classes or money and the state will have ceased to exist as an instrument of class rule but there will still be an organisation that distributes certificates for work done, both this organisation and the certificates only become unnecessary when the economy can provide for all according to need.

If you want to learn more i'd recommend Critique of the Gotha Program by Marx or The State and Revolution by Lenin, particularly chapter 5 where Lenin quotes the former extensively.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/index.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm

[Koba Junior]

Actually it's what Marx and Engels called the dictatorship of the proletariat which is distinct from socialism. The proletarian dictatorship is simply the political rule of the working class and is between capitalism and socialism, the measures in the Communist Manifesto are immediate measures to be carried out by the working class in order to move away from capitalism and towards socialism.

I'm afraid that I'm skeptical that there is a distinct phase between socialism and capitalism and that this is what is meant by dictatorship of the proletariat. Does class struggle not persist even in socialist countries?

[Blake's Baby]

How can class struggle persist under socialism? Socialism is a classless communal society.

How can there be 'socialist countries'? Socialism can only be built after capitalism has been defeated. I really don't think it has been.

[Koba Junior]

How can class struggle persist under socialism? Socialism is a classless communal society.

How can there be 'socialist countries'? Socialism can only be built after capitalism has been defeated. I really don't think it has been.

Socialism refers to a particular mode of relation to the means of production. Socialism is the collective, public ownership of the means of production by the proletariat, a class whose identity is determined by their historical relationship to the means of production under capitalism. Vestiges of capitalist society will persist during the development of socialism, the lower stage of communism. Even when the big capitalists are expropriated, various other segments of society, such as the petty bourgeoisie, will remain. Socialism is not a static goal to be reached, but rather a particular mode of social development.

As for the existence of socialist countries, socialism existed where the relationship to the means of production was as described in the previous paragraph.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Socialism refers to a particular mode of relation to the means of production. Socialism is the collective, public ownership of the means of production by the proletariat, a class whose identity is determined by their historical relationship to the means of production under capitalism. Vestiges of capitalist society will persist during the development of socialism, the lower stage of communism. Even when the big capitalists are expropriated, various other segments of society, such as the petty bourgeoisie, will remain. Socialism is not a static goal to be reached, but rather a particular mode of social development.

As for the existence of socialist countries, socialism existed where the relationship to the means of production was as described in the previous paragraph.

I don't tend to be a stickler for terms because as long as there is a common theoretical makeup behind the terms who cares what you call it. It should be noted that Marx used communism and socialism interchangeably to signify a classless and stateless society. The change came particularly with Lenin who used socialism as synonymous with a dictatorship of the proletariat and as a relation to the means of production, as you wrote above. It all depends on your political orientation on how these terms are used I guess. I am no anti-Leninist by any means but I generally equate socialism with communism to mean the same thing.

[Koba Junior]

I don't tend to be a stickler for terms because as long as there is a common theoretical makeup behind the terms who cares what you call it. It should be noted that Marx used communism and socialism interchangeably to signify a classless and stateless society. The change came particularly with Lenin who used socialism as synonymous with a dictatorship of the proletariat and as a relation to the means of production, as you wrote above. It all depends on your political orientation on how these terms are used I guess. I am no anti-Leninist by any means but I generally equate socialism with communism to mean the same thing.

I'm fairly certain that Marx and Engels both describe distinct phases in the transition from capitalism to communism. That being said, the recognition of the persistence of vestigial elements of capitalism is a theoretical development attributable to the experience of Comrade Lenin.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I'm fairly certain that Marx and Engels both describe distinct phases in the transition from capitalism to communism.
Yes, they talk of higher and lower stages, but never differentiate socialism from communism, but again this isn't of that much importance.

[Koba Junior]

Yes, they talk of higher and lower stages, but never differentiate socialism from communism, but again this isn't of that much importance.

I guess we could be talking about shmoodly-boop and if it meant communism then I suppose it doesn't matter.

[Aurora]

I'm afraid that I'm skeptical that there is a distinct phase between socialism and capitalism and that this is what is meant by dictatorship of the proletariat. Does class struggle not persist even in socialist countries?

There were no socialist countries there were only countries which had started the transformation to socialism, that is, countries where the proletariat had raised itself to the position of ruling class, overthrown the bourgeois supremacy, won the battle of democracy etc as Marx and Engels put it.

If you check out The State and Revolution Lenin says clearly that the Soviets are an organ of the proletarian dictatorship, he's also clear that Socialism is classless. For socialism to exist classes would have to be abolished and from this the state would whither away.
The countries that claimed to be socialist, the SU after 1934 etc, all had classes and of course all had a massive state apparatus, there can be no talk of socialism where production is at such a low level that it can't provide even for basis needs, where the working class no longer rule democratically and where it's necessary to pump out T34's to stop capitalist invasion.

[Koba Junior]

There were no socialist countries there were only countries which had started the transformation to socialism, that is, countries where the proletariat had raised itself to the position of ruling class, overthrown the bourgeois supremacy, won the battle of democracy etc as Marx and Engels put it.

That sounds like socialism to me.

[Lanky Wanker]

Yay, semantics war now. Wasn't it Lenin who differentiated between the two? Anyway, I don't think it makes sense to use the terms 'socialism' and 'communism' interchangeably. Socialism could mean a million things that aren't communism... if socialism is communism then are free market socialists supposed to be communists too? I've gathered that people using the term 'socialism' to refer to the so-called "lower stage(s) of communism" comes from the more watered down (non-communist) socialist ideologies which this shares traits with.

[Koba Junior]

Yay, semantics war now. Wasn't it Lenin who differentiated between the two? Anyway, I don't think it makes sense to use the terms 'socialism' and 'communism' interchangeably. Socialism could mean a million things that aren't communism... if socialism is communism then are free market socialists supposed to be communists too? I've gathered that people using the term 'socialism' to refer to the so-called "lower stage(s) of communism" comes from the more watered down (non-communist) socialist ideologies which this shares traits with.

The use of socialism to refer to the lower stage of communism comes directly from Lenin himself, and I doubt you could call him a non-communist.

[Lanky Wanker]

The use of socialism to refer to the lower stage of communism comes directly from Lenin himself, and I doubt you could call him a non-communist.

I think you misunderstood what I said. Many might say Lenin wasn't a communist (yes, anarchists), but that wasn't what I was getting at. I'm tired as fuck so if it needs explaining I can't be bothered right now, call me in 10 hours though.

[Blake's Baby]

Yay, semantics war now. Wasn't it Lenin who differentiated between the two? Anyway, I don't think it makes sense to use the terms 'socialism' and 'communism' interchangeably. Socialism could mean a million things that aren't communism... if socialism is communism then are free market socialists supposed to be communists too? I've gathered that people using the term 'socialism' to refer to the so-called "lower stage(s) of communism" comes from the more watered down (non-communist) socialist ideologies which this shares traits with.

There are no 'free market socialists'. There are people who want capitalism to be a bit nicer.

The use of 'socialist' to mean 'people who want capitalism to be a bit nicer' comes from the betrayal by the majority of the Socialist Parties (but not, for example, the SPGB). However, they were called 'Socialist' back in the days when they stood for socialism. Changing their policies but not their names doesn't mean that whatever they decide they believe in is 'socialism'. Otherwise Hitler was a socialist (because he was a member of party called 'socialist'). In exactly the same way, Barak Obama is a member of a party called 'democratic' and therefore whatever he does is what 'democracy' means. Unless of course you agree with me that the names of parties do not always refer to what those parties practice.

I think we should not give up words so easily. Words do change their meanings; but if you're going to hypothesise that we should use 'socialsm' to mean whatever social-democratic ('socialist') parties are in favour of, you will have a lot of socialists (who believe in socialism, ie a classless communal society) resisting that definition.


The use of socialism to refer to the lower stage of communism comes directly from Lenin himself, and I doubt you could call him a non-communist.

I'm fairly well disposed towards Lenin, though he wasn't right about everything by any means. As a Marxist, I'd generally take what Marx says over what Lenin says if the two are in disagreement. The fact is, Lenin didn't understand Marx's schema and used the term 'socialism' incorrectly.

[Rooster]

The use of socialism to refer to the lower stage of communism comes directly from Lenin himself, and I doubt you could call him a non-communist.

This does come from Lenin and this is one of the main divergences from Marx and Engels. This comes from either a fundamental misreading of The Critique of the Gotha Program (and other texts by Marx and Engels but specifically that one) or an intentional distortion of it.

[Aurora]

The fact is, Lenin didn't understand Marx's schema and used the term 'socialism' incorrectly.


This does come from Lenin and this is one of the main divergences from Marx and Engels. This comes from either a fundamental misreading of The Critique of the Gotha Program (and other texts by Marx and Engels but specifically that one) or an intentional distortion of it.
I don't think theres a problem with referring to what Marx and Engels called the lower phase of communism as socialism as long as we're all clear what we're talking about, the problem arises when people talk about the DOTP and socialism as the same thing, this arose not with Lenin who is clear:

"Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the money-bags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists."

"in the first phase of communist society (usually called socialism) ....The state withers away insofar as there are no longer any capitalists, any classes, and, consequently, no class can be suppressed."

[Rooster]

I don't think theres a problem with referring to what Marx and Engels called the lower phase of communism as socialism as long as we're all clear what we're talking about, the problem arises when people talk about the DOTP and socialism as the same thing, this arose not with Lenin who is clear:

"Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the money-bags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists."

"in the first phase of communist society (usually called socialism) ....The state withers away insofar as there are no longer any capitalists, any classes, and, consequently, no class can be suppressed."

The same document where he says under socialism, citizens would become paid employees of the state. You can't have your cake and eat it.

[Geiseric]

The DotP is the stage that is before Socialism as an economic and political system with state ownership of all production can be established.

You can have a land of peasant farms like in Russia which the state owns and it won't be socialism. Socialism needs the industry of a first world country to exist and survive. The N.E.P. and Industrialisation were steps in developing Russia at the time, however even after the country indsutrialised the population of the fSU lived under the thumb of the Clique of Bureaucrats that Stalin established as the rulers of the U.S.S.R.

This still means though that the state was proletarian in nature, because it wasn't capitalist and it was being used to develop the country which is progressive given that Capitalism and Feudalism were unable to develop the country in the same way that any other 3rd world state which is subservient to Bourgeois is unable. The economy was developed to make things that people needed and which developed the proletariat, like factories and modern industry, not peasant farming which is what Russia would of been had the Capitalists remained in control.

I hope I was of some help. But the dictatorship of the proletariat is the state that inevitably forms as the result of a revolution, in the same way that the French Revolutionary Government was the dictatorship of the bourgeois after the great revolution. Napoleon, even though the politics of the revolutionary government changed to be less democratic, still acted as part of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie in that he established a capitalist economy and used his conquests to develop that. Stalin even though he changed the political nature of the USSR with his purges was still technically in the DotP since he abolished private property and proved that a planned socialist economy was a huge success in terms of advancing russia in 20 years in ways that took capitalist countries centuries.

[Caj]

The use of socialism to refer to the lower stage of communism comes directly from Lenin himself

The "first phase" of communism, as explained in The Critique of the Gotha Programme, differs from the "higher phase" only in how production and distribution is organized (remuneration for labor and communal markets in the case of the former, "from each according to his [or her] ability, to each according to his [or her] needs" in the case of the latter). Lenin's distinction between socialism and communism amounted to much more than a difference in how production and distribution is organized.

[Brosip Tito]

Yay, semantics war now. Wasn't it Lenin who differentiated between the two? Anyway, I don't think it makes sense to use the terms 'socialism' and 'communism' interchangeably. Socialism could mean a million things that aren't communism... if socialism is communism then are free market socialists supposed to be communists too? I've gathered that people using the term 'socialism' to refer to the so-called "lower stage(s) of communism" comes from the more watered down (non-communist) socialist ideologies which this shares traits with.
Hence the differentiation between scientific and utopian socialism.

[Rooster]

The "first phase" of communism, as explained in The Critique of the Gotha Programme, differs from the "higher phase" only in how production and distribution is organized (remuneration for labor and communal markets in the case of the former, "from each according to his [or her] ability, to each according to his [or her] needs" in the case of the latter). Lenin's distinction between socialism and communism ammounted to much more than a difference in how production and distribution is organized.

I would amend that by saying that it's not how production is organized, but rather on the productive capacity to provide for all. Lenin's conflation of the DotP (with hired labour and classes, etc) with the lowest phase of socialism amounts to reformism. A top down, utopian socialism, that Marx and Engels disagreed with.

[Koba Junior]

I don't think Lenin diverges from Marx and Engels by any means, but perhaps my understanding is a bit muddled. If Marx and Engels used the terms socialism and communism rather interchangeably, as has been asserted, it stands to reason, then, that perhaps Lenin's use of the word state might have been meant to indicate different things in different contexts. In Engels's Anti-Duhring, he describes the "withering away of the state" as the process by which "the government of persons" becomes "the administration of things." This seems to suggest, to me, that there is supposed to develop a non-exploitative organizational structure geared towards administrating productive forces rather than suppressing people or coercing them. Such an organizational structure might be called a state, but it is inherently different than the state of the capitalist type. So, on the one hand, the state withers away, but a new means of organizing society arises in its place and might roughly be considered the socialist analogue of the state. Thus the "socialist state."

[Rooster]

If Marx and Engels used the terms socialism and communism rather interchangeably, as has been asserted,

Asserted as truth


it stands to reason, then, that perhaps Lenin's use of the word state might have been meant to indicate different things in different contexts.

Lenin used the term in different contexts at different times and not consistently. Leninism conflates the DotP with socialism with the lowest phase of communism.


In Engels's Anti-Duhring, he describes the "withering away of the state" as the process by which "the government of persons" becomes "the administration of things." This seems to suggest, to me, that there is supposed to develop a non-exploitative organizational structure geared towards administrating productive forces rather than suppressing people or coercing them. Such an organizational structure might be called a state, but it is inherently different than the state of the capitalist type. So, on the one hand, the state withers away, but a new means of organizing society arises in its place and might roughly be considered the socialist analogue of the state.

The main problem is the mixing up of the dotp with the lower phase of socialism. And what you wrote is mostly fine if you see it as a process.


Thus the "socialist state."

And here is the problem, under the lowest phase of socialism, there can not be a state in the usual term of the word because classes no longer exist.

[Koba Junior]

And here is the problem, under the lowest phase of socialism, there can not be a state in the usual term of the word because classes no longer exist.

Thus "state," here, being something of a misnomer, but still useful in communicating the idea of organizational structure. If one redefines the state to mean a classless society organized according to productive administration, or what have you, then one kind of state withers away while another takes its place. However, socialism is a living process that itself won't adhere to strict definitions or plans. Some vestiges of capitalism or the market may remain after the revolution, classes may remain during the construction of socialism, etc. When I use "socialism," I mean the process of building that classless society in which labor is life's prime want and the people collectively administer their production. I doubt a single thing will go perfectly, but the guiding principles remain steadfast.

As for the dictatorship of the proletariat, it becomes difficult to place this phenomenon chronologically along the transition from capitalism to communism if socialism is regarded as a process. The dictatorship of the proletariat most definitely precedes the completion of a classless society, but I wonder if it really is mutually exclusive with the process of constructing such a society.

[Geiseric]

classes not in the USSR were still trying to restore capitalism though, so the state in the international sense was still needed, as was comintern which should of stayed independent from the Bureaucracy.

[Rooster]

Thus "state," here, being something of a misnomer, but still useful in communicating the idea of organizational structure. If one redefines the state to mean a classless society organized according to productive administration, or what have you, then one kind of state withers away while another takes its place. However, socialism is a living process that itself won't adhere to strict definitions or plans. Some vestiges of capitalism or the market may remain after the revolution, classes may remain during the construction of socialism, etc. When I use "socialism," I mean the process of building that classless society in which labor is life's prime want and the people collectively administer their production. I doubt a single thing will go perfectly, but the guiding principles remain steadfast.

No, it can't. It only means that when your definition of revolution is one of political coup and not of an economic overhaul. Your definition of socialism if one of reformism and lacks the revolutionary push that Marx and Engels both used when they meant the word.


As for the dictatorship of the proletariat, it becomes difficult to place this phenomenon chronologically along the transition from capitalism to communism if socialism is regarded as a process. The dictatorship of the proletariat most definitely precedes the completion of a classless society, but I wonder if it really is mutually exclusive with the process of constructing such a society.

It only becomes difficult if you try to fit in the Leninist and Stalinist traditions of the phrase to Marx and Engels. Socialization is a process that happens under capitalism. Socialism is when that process overcomes a point when production comes up against distribution. You don't "construct" a socialist society. You dissemble a capitalist one. You have read Anti-Duhring haven't you?

[Aurora]

The same document where he says under socialism, citizens would become paid employees of the state. You can't have your cake and eat it.
There will still be the remnants of a state in socialism, but not a state in the proper sense of the word, what Lenin writes as accounting and control and Engels the mere administration of things. There wont be classes as i'm sure you agree but there will be labour-time vouchers which will need to be distributed by some body, Lenin is writing about this bourgeois law, distribution according to work and with an equal standard.


Lenin's conflation of the DotP (with hired labour and classes, etc) with the lowest phase of socialism
Can you show where this happens?

The distinction is clear, DOTP is a class dictatorship and the state is a political body, socialism is classless where the state loses it's political character. It's also worth pointing out that Lenin calls the SU a proletarian dictatorship but doesn't call it socialism. We have to wait until 1934 for that gem.

[Koba Junior]

No, it can't. It only means that when your definition of revolution is one of political coup and not of an economic overhaul. Your definition of socialism if one of reformism and lacks the revolutionary push that Marx and Engels both used when they meant the word.

There is nothing at all reformist about what I said. The process of building socialist administration and production will take time and effort. It will be relatively rapid, but dismantling an entire social order isn't the kind of thing one can take care of in an afternoon. There's nothing unreasonable or reformist about that expectation.


It only becomes difficult if you try to fit in the Leninist and Stalinist traditions of the phrase to Marx and Engels. Socialization is a process that happens under capitalism. Socialism is when that process overcomes a point when production comes up against distribution. You don't "construct" a socialist society. You dissemble a capitalist one. You have read Anti-Duhring haven't you?Socialism is not the absence of capitalism, at least not that alone. The task of building socialism is developing collective administration of production. The state withers away through its growing obsolescence; it is neither overthrown nor destroyed in one mighty blow.

[Geiseric]

Well in a backwards peasant country like Russia was, the production of pre-civil war had to be rebuilt in itself, so capitalism was necessary to win over the Peasantry who have different goals than the working class. The working peasantry is obviously in the same league as the working class, however the rich farmers were starving the cities thus it was necessary to win over their support for a few years.

However! It's important to note that once production reached pre-war levels, the N.E.P. should of been abandoned in favor of industrialisation at about 1925 instead of in the early 1930s, which ended up as a disorganized mess that led the working peasantry along with the rich peasantry (who deserved expropiation) possetionless and starving, to the point where they had to move into the cities to form a work force, in the same way that Victorian England and the United Provinces formed the original proletariat in the 17th century, which could of been described as barbaric, backwards, and overall fucked up.

Comintern was already allying with Western Capitalists to help with the industrialisation of the U.S.S.R. instead of working towards revolution by that point, which is the political motive of the degeneration of the workers state, Communist International and planned economy, which screams Menshevism and opportunism on the part of Comintern and the new rulers of the fSU.