Lenin's definition of socialism and 'stages' of communism

[cantwealljustgetalong]

I've been getting mixed responses on how Lenin defined 'socialism.' It appears there are two major narratives:

Marxist-Leninist/Stalinist:

Lenin elucidates on this concept in Chapter Five of The State and Revolution, in which he cites the writing of Marx and Engels. The pre-Lenin conception of communism was that it occurred in two stages, a "lower" stage in which certain vestiges of the old bourgeois order persisted during the active endeavor to resolve the contradictions of class and capitalism, and a "higher" stage in which "true" communism had been achieved and the dictum for labor, free of class and free of the state, would be "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Lenin would not alter this concept in any fundamental way, but he would assign the word "socialism" to the "lower" stage and "communism" to the "higher" stage as a means of easily differentiating between the two. Marx and Engels would instead use the words rather interchangeably.

Anti-Stalinist:

Lenin, following Marx, recognized socialism as a lower phase of communism, and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" as a transitional regime to bridge the gap between capitalism and socialism. Anybody who thinks that the DotP phase was the lower phase of communism needs to re-read both Lenin and Marx.

I've always been under the impression that Lenin did not view the initial stage of communism as socialism at all, although when I was referred to State and Revolution, I was indeed surprised to see Lenin seem to refer to it as such repeatedly. However, it seems pretty clear from his every use of the word that socialism is synonymous with the final stage of communism and specifically not the initial stage.

State and Revolution also seems to make it a point to distinguish between the dictatorship of the proletariat and the first stage of communism, although this distinction isn't as clear. The 'DotP' is a proletarian democracy with repression of capitalist forces, which sounds quite similar to the initial stage of communism with two major differences: 1) the DotP necessarily maintains the leadership of the vanguard revolutionary party, while the initial stage of communism echoes the form of a bourgeois democratic republic, and 2) in the initial phase of communism, both property and employment are completely handled by the state, implying that there may be leftovers of the market or private property under the DotP.

Do I have this correct? I have to imagine the Marxist-Leninist view is colored by Stalin's Socialism in One Country; otherwise, I cannot understand why anyone would advocate that Lenin defines "socialism" in preceisely the way he distances himself from throughout the chapter.

[Lucretia]

I've been getting mixed responses on how Lenin defined 'socialism.' It appears there are two major narratives:

Marxist-Leninist/Stalinist:


Anti-Stalinist:


I've always been under the impression that Lenin did not view the transitional regime as socialism at all, although when I was referred to State and Revolution, I was indeed surprised to see Lenin seem to refer to it as such repeatedly. However, it seems pretty clear from his every use of the word that socialism is synonymous with the final stage of communism and specifically not the initial stage.

State and Revolution also seems to make it a point to distinguish between the dictatorship of the proletariat and the first stage of communism, although this distinction isn't as clear. The 'DotP' is a proletarian democracy with repression of capitalist forces, which sounds quite similar to the initial stage of communism with two major differences: 1) the DotP necessarily maintains the leadership of the vanguard revolutionary party, while the initial stage of communism echoes the form of a bourgeois democratic republic, and 2) in the initial phase of communism, both property and employment are completely handled by the state, implying that there may be leftovers of the market or private property under the DotP.

Do I have this correct? I have to imagine the Marxist-Leninist view is colored by Stalin's Socialism in One Country; otherwise, I cannot understand why anyone would advocate that Lenin defines "socialism" in preceisely the way he distances himself from throughout the chapter.

There are three major transformations going on in Lenin's State and Revolution, and each of these transformations brings about a transformation in the use of political power in the society (or "the state"). The first transformation is from capitalism to the DotP, when workers seize control over the means of production and smash the bourgeois state, establishing what Engels called a "state no longer in the proper sense of the word" (or some such phrase), because it was an apparatus of coercion designed to make itself obsolete by eliminating the very source of state power, i.e., class antagonisms. The DotP is the use of the workers' state to suppress recently dispossessed capitalists and to oversee a transformation of production relations away from capitalism and the law of value.

The second is the transformation from the DotP to a fully classless society -- the lower phase of communism -- in which some bourgeois-tinted distribution relations persist in a way that entails the continued need for "a bourgeois state without the bourgeoisie" (as Marx said). It is also a society that requires a special apparatus of coercion because, although classes have been eliminated, some members of society have not become habituated to observing the rules of daily intercourse. In other words, elements of bourgeois thinking and selfishness still persist even after the "economic base" for such behavior is eliminated.

And the third transformation is from the lower to a higher phase of communism, in which the workers' state has totally disappeared, after having persisted through the transitional period and the lower stage of communism.

The state begins to wither away as soon as the proletariat has smashed the bourgeois one and replaced it with their own. The withering ends, so to speak, with the onset of the higher stage of communism.

Do you mind pointing to any quotes where you think Lenin refers to the DotP as a "socialism"?

[Камо́ Зэд]

I'm not so sure that the lower phase of communism is, indeed, fully classless, as Marx, Engels, and Lenin agreed that various vestiges of class society, including what either Lenin or Marx would refer to as "bourgeois law" (which isn't itself class division), would persist until the "higher" stage of communism. I don't know that any of the three suggested that the dictatorship of the proletariat would no longer be necessary under socialism, and, really, I could see why it would be necessary for it to persist during the socialist endeavor. According to the Marxist-Leninist analysis, the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union began around the time that various Party figures, including Khrushchev, began saying that the dictatorship of the proletariat was no longer necessary. Even from a non-Leninist standpoint, that capitalism should have prevailed in the majority of the world at this time makes this notion completely absurd.

[Lucretia]

I'm not so sure that the lower phase of communism is, indeed, fully classless, as Marx, Engels, and Lenin agreed that various vestiges of class society, including what either Lenin or Marx would refer to as "bourgeois law" (which isn't itself class division), would persist until the "higher" stage of communism. I don't know that any of the three suggested that the dictatorship of the proletariat would no longer be necessary under socialism, and, really, I could see why it would be necessary for it to persist during the socialist endeavor. According to the Marxist-Leninist analysis, the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union began around the time that various Party figures, including Khrushchev, began saying that the dictatorship of the proletariat was no longer necessary. Even from a non-Leninist standpoint, that capitalism should have prevailed in the majority of the world at this time makes this notion completely absurd.

This can be clarified very simply. Where in any of Marx's or Lenin's texts do you see any mention of classes in a communist society, lower or higher phases? I have never seen a single instance of it, yet I have repeatedly seen both refer to communism as a classless society. Your views on this are most peculiar.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

thank you both for responding!

in the selections I quoted from both of you, you both seemed to say that Lenin defined 'socialism' as the initial stage of communism. however, you haven't rebutted my reading of State and Revolution that explicitly denies this. are there works by Lenin (or other Bolsheviks) that point in this direction? and where do Marx and Engels tackle these concepts?

the initial stage of communism cannot be a truly classless society, as there is still a state (by the Marxist definition of state). however, Lenin describing "bourgeois law without the bourgeoisie" seems to imply that the capitalist counter-revolution has been eliminated, and that the mode of oppression has gone from a vanguardist dictatorship to a democratic republic modelled after the familiar bourgeois dictatorships:


In its first phase, or first stage, communism cannot as yet be fully mature economically and entirely free from traditions or vestiges of capitalism. Hence the interesting phenomenon that communism in its first phase retains "the narrow horizon of bourgeois law". Of course, bourgeois law in regard to the distribution of consumer goods inevitably presupposes the existence of the bourgeois state, for law is nothing without an apparatus capable of enforcing the observance of the rules of law.

It follows that under communism there remains for a time not only bourgeois law, but even the bourgeois state, without the bourgeoisie!

however, my assumption rests on a reading of "bourgeois law" that differentiates it from a more straightforward dictatorship. I'm not sure this jump is warranted and I'd like some feedback on that too.

thanks again!

[Камо́ Зэд]

This can be clarified very simply. Where in any of Marx's or Lenin's texts do you see any mention of classes in a communist society, lower or higher phases? I have never seen a single instance of it, yet I have repeatedly seen both refer to communism as a classless society. Your views on this are most peculiar.


It is this communist society, which has just emerged into the light of day out of the womb of capitalism and which is in every respect stamped with the birthmarks of the old society, that Marx terms the “first”, or lower, phase of communist society. . . .


"Hence, the equal right," says Marx, in this case still certainly conforms to "bourgeois law", which,like all law, implies inequality. All law is an application of an equal measure to different people who in fact are not alike, are not equal to one another. That is why the "equal right" is violation of equality and an injustice. In fact, everyone, having performed as much social labor as another, receives an equal share of the social product . . .


At no point do Marx, Engels, or Lenin indeed explicitly say that class itself were persist into the first phase of communism, but it stands to reason that the vestiges of class will persist. Marx, Engels, and Lenin are very clear on this issue that inequality persists into the first phase of communism, and inequality is a vestige of class, in this case perpetuated by the persistence of law and other state-like mechanisms that have not, by this point, entirely withered away. While the "state" in this case is really what has been called a "semi-state" designed, ultimately, to grow ever more obsolete, state in all its iterations is a product of class. The lower stage is characterized by the struggle against those remaining vestiges or "birthmarks" of capitalist society, whereas the advent of the higher stage is congruent with the dying away of these vestiges.

[Камо́ Зэд]

in the selections I quoted from both of you, you both seemed to say that Lenin defined 'socialism' as the initial stage of communism. however, you haven't rebutted my reading of State and Revolution that explicitly denies this. are there works by Lenin (or other Bolsheviks) that point in this direction? and where do Marx and Engels tackle these concepts?

My assertion was that Lenin would typically use the word "socialism" to mean the lower stage of communism, although throughout his work, he does tend to adopt Marx's and Engels's habit of using "socialism" and "communism" interchangeably as well. In the grand scheme of things, how he used a particular word is a trivial matter.

[Lucretia]

At no point do Marx, Engels, or Lenin indeed explicitly say that class itself were persist into the first phase of communism, but it stands to reason that the vestiges of class will persist. Marx, Engels, and Lenin are very clear on this issue that inequality persists into the first phase of communism, and inequality is a vestige of class, in this case perpetuated by the persistence of law and other state-like mechanisms that have not, by this point, entirely withered away. While the "state" in this case is really what has been called a "semi-state" designed, ultimately, to grow ever more obsolete, state in all its iterations is a product of class. The lower stage is characterized by the struggle against those remaining vestiges or "birthmarks" of capitalist society, whereas the advent of the higher stage is congruent with the dying away of these vestiges.

This is a terrible misreading of the portion of the text you quoted. You see a subheading titled "the lower phase of communist society," which is then followed by body text that talks about the DotP "as it has just emerged from capitalist society," then therefore conclude that the two are the same thing because they are right next to each other in the text. In fact, Lenin's discussion about the DotP is a prelude to his discussion in that section of the first phase of communist society (socialism), which is why he titles the subheading "the lower phase of communist society."

You should learn to read more critically and carefully.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

My assertion was that Lenin would typically use the word "socialism" to mean the lower stage of communism, although throughout his work, he does tend to adopt Marx's and Engels's habit of using "socialism" and "communism" interchangeably as well. In the grand scheme of things, how he used a particular word is a trivial matter.

Lenin may agree that definitions and word choice are irrelevant, but I consider these definitions to be of theoretical import, and I would like some citations if you could spare them.

I am also still interested in hearing where Marx and Engels wrote about stages of communism.

Lucretia, how would you respond to the Lenin quote in my last post? He seems to pretty clearly indicate that those classist vestiges would remain in the first stage of communism, among other nasty bourgeois things.

[Камо́ Зэд]

This is a terrible misreading of the portion of the text you quoted. You see a subheading titled "the lower phase of communist society," which is then followed by body text that talks about the DotP "as it has just emerged from capitalist society," then therefore conclude that the two are the same thing because they are right next to each other in the text. In fact, Lenin's discussion about the DotP is a prelude to his discussion in that section of the first phase of communist society (socialism), which is why he titles the subheading "the lower phase of communist society."

You should learn to read more critically and carefully.


The first phase of communism, therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences, in wealth will still persist . . .

And so, in the first phase of communist society (usually called socialism) "bourgeois law" is not abolished in its entirety, but only in part, only in proportion to the economic revolution so far attained, i.e., only in respect of the means of production. "Bourgeois law" recognizes them as the private property of individuals. Socialism converts them into common property. To that extent--and to that extent alone--"bourgeois law" disappears.

However, it persists as far as its other part is concerned; it persists in the capacity of regulator (determining factor) in the distribution of products and the allotment of labor among the members of society. The socialist principle, "He who does not work shall not eat", is already realized; the other socialist principle, "An equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor", is also already realized. But this is not yet communism, and it does not yet abolish "bourgeois law", which gives unequal individuals, in return for unequal (really unequal) amounts of labor, equal amounts of products. . . .

The state withers away insofar as there are no longer any capitalists, any classes, and, consequently, no class can be suppressed.

But the state has not yet completely withered away, since the still remains the safeguarding of "bourgeois law", which sanctifies actual inequality. For the state to wither away completely, complete communism is necessary.



You were right in saying that classes do not persist under socialism, but the vestiges of class and class society do, indeed. And Lenin was abundantly clear that this is true of the first phase of communism.

[Lucretia]

thank you both for responding!

in the selections I quoted from both of you, you both seemed to say that Lenin defined 'socialism' as the initial stage of communism. however, you haven't rebutted my reading of State and Revolution that explicitly denies this. are there works by Lenin (or other Bolsheviks) that point in this direction? and where do Marx and Engels tackle these concepts?

the initial stage of communism cannot be a truly classless society, as there is still a state (by the Marxist definition of state). however, Lenin describing "bourgeois law without the bourgeoisie" seems to imply that the capitalist counter-revolution has been eliminated, and that the mode of oppression has gone from a vanguardist dictatorship to a democratic republic modelled after the familiar bourgeois dictatorships:



however, my assumption rests on a reading of "bourgeois law" that differentiates it from a more straightforward dictatorship. I'm not sure this jump is warranted and I'd like some feedback on that too.

thanks again!

Correct me if I am wrong here, but your argument consists of the following:

P1: The lower phase of communist society will have inequality and be governed in distribution of goods, to some degree, by "bourgeois right" -- an abstract form of equality.

P2: To enforce this bourgeois right, a state is necessary.

P3: States can only exist in class societies.

Conclusion: The lower phase of communism is a class society.

I think the major flaw in this logic is P3, which misses the distinction Lenin and Engels make between a state in the proper sense of the term, and a "workers' state" under the DotP and under the lower phase of communism.

A state in the proper sense of the term is one that results from and reinforces class power. In this way, a minority of exploiters use it to stabilize the antagonistic class relationships to perpetuate their ruling status, with the goal being the continued existence of the state ad infinitum.

The workers' state is dramatically different. While it is a specialized apparatus of force that derives its existence from production relations, those productions relations from which it derives its power are non-class and egalitarian. State force in this instance is thus not wielded by a minority against the majority for the sake of stabilizing exploitative relationships and maintaining the state ad infinitum, but to rooting out the vestiges of resistance to public control of productive property, so that the state as a specialized institution of coercion no longer needs to exist.

[Lucretia]

You were right in saying that classes do not persist under socialism, but the vestiges of class and class society do, indeed. And Lenin was abundantly clear that this is true of the first phase of communism.

Again, you are completely misreading this bolded part. Let's take another look at the relevant portion:


The state withers away insofar as there are no longer any capitalists, any classes, and, consequently, no class can be suppressed. But the state has not yet completely withered away, since the still remains the safeguarding of "bourgeois law", which sanctifies actual inequality. For the state to wither away completely, complete communism is necessary.It is obvious what he's saying here is that the state withers away because there is no longer a need to engage in class warfare, to suppress expropriated capitalists and to prevent them from re-acquiring the means of production. But, he says, there is still a state, NOT BECAUSE THERE ARE STILL CLASSES, but because "there still remains the safeguarding of bourgeois law, which sanctifies inequality." Again, this strongly suggests the correctness of my position: that under communism there might be "bourgeois law" and "bourgeois norms of distribution," but certainly no bourgeoisie and no classes.


Notice here how he is juxtaposing and contrasting the two reasons for saying a state might need to exist. He does this because they are different reasons for why a state might need to exist, whereas you - unless I am misreading your position here - are trying to interpret this text as suggesting that Lenin is restating the same thing ("The state can only wither away when classes disappear. But there's still a state because of bourgeois law, which means that there are classes, so a state must continue to exist.")

[Камо́ Зэд]

It is obvious what he's saying here is that the state withers away because there is no longer a need to engage in class warfare, to suppress expropriated capitalists and to prevent them from re-acquiring the means of production. But, he says, there is still a state, NOT BECAUSE THERE ARE STILL CLASSES, but because "there still remains the safeguarding of bourgeois law, which sanctifies inequality." Again, this strongly suggests the correctness of my position: that under communism there might be "bourgeois law" and "bourgeois norms of distribution," but certainly no bourgeoisie and no classes.

Comrade, you're quoting the very post in which I admit there are no classes, but that there persist the vestiges of class society.


Notice here how he is juxtaposing and contrasting the two reasons for saying a state might need to exist. He does this because they are different reasons for why a state might need to exist, whereas you - unless I am misreading your position here - are trying to interpret this text as suggesting that Lenin is restating the same thing ("The state can only wither away when classes disappear. But there's still a state because of bourgeois law, which means that there are classes, so a state must continue to exist.")

You are indeed misreading my position, and quite seriously, I might add. I've been more than ready to admit, with bold citation, that classes do not themselves persist into the lower phase of communism. But it is quite clear that elements of the old order, of the class society still do persist into this phase, even if classes do not do so themselves per se.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

The workers' state is dramatically different. While it is a specialized apparatus of force that derives its existence from production relations, those productions relations from which it derives its power are non-class and egalitarian. State force in this instance is thus not wielded by a minority against the majority for the sake of stabilizing exploitative relationships and maintaining the state ad infinitum, but to rooting out the vestiges of resistance to public control of productive property, so that the state as a specialized institution of coercion no longer needs to exist.

This is an important nuance. So this is what is meant by 'semi-state': a proletarian democratic state that uses its repressive power to guide the falsely-conscious sections of the proletariat towards communism. It isn't a state in the normal sense of the term because the proletariat's representatives and the falsely-conscious sections of the proletariat at least theoretically have the same relationship towards production; the "vestiges" of class society that appear refers to the resemblance between the proletarian state's coercion of the falsely-conscious sections of the proletariat and the bourgeois state's oppression of the proletariat as a whole under capitalism.

[Lucretia]

This is an important nuance. So this is what is meant by 'semi-state': a proletarian democratic state that uses its repressive power to guide the falsely-conscious sections of the proletariat towards communism. It isn't a state in the normal sense of the term because the proletariat's representatives and the falsely-conscious sections of the proletariat at least theoretically have the same relationship towards production; the "vestiges" of class society that appear refers to the resemblance between the proletarian state's coercion of the falsely-conscious sections of the proletariat and the bourgeois state's oppression of the proletariat as a whole under capitalism.

To add nuance to the nuance, I would quibble with the idea that the workers' state is to "guide the falsely conscious sections of the proletariat to communism." Unless by "guide" you mean to create conditions where people can assert for themselves greater collective self-management of their own affairs. The reason I say this is that language like "guiding the less class conscious" can make it seem as though communism is the act of a state staffed by enlightened people bossing the idiotic hoi polloi to be more communist. Communism can only be the result of personal and collective self-emancipation, so at best the role of the state is to lead by example, to attempt to educate, and to create other conditions where people can become communists on their own accord. But that is different into "making them communists" in any literal sense. This is why Lenin and Trotsky always preferred methods of persuasion to methods of direct coercion. They understood that such coercion was antithetical to the idea of communism and self-emancipation.

[Lucretia]

Comrade, you're quoting the very post in which I admit there are no classes, but that there persist the vestiges of class society.



You are indeed misreading my position, and quite seriously, I might add. I've been more than ready to admit, with bold citation, that classes do not themselves persist into the lower phase of communism. But it is quite clear that elements of the old order, of the class society still do persist into this phase, even if classes do not do so themselves per se.

Very well, my apologies. I suppose we are in full agreement on this issue then.

[Obs]

ITT MLs and everyone else argue for 1000 pages on whether to call the same thing socialism or the Dictatorhip of the Proletariat, based on shit done by people who died before they were even fucking born.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

To add nuance to the nuance, I would quibble with the idea that the workers' state is to "guide the falsely conscious sections of the proletariat to communism." Unless by "guide" you mean to create conditions where people can assert for themselves greater collective self-management of their own affairs. The reason I say this is that language like "guiding the less class conscious" can make it seem as though communism is the act of a state staffed by enlightened people bossing the idiotic hoi polloi to be more communist. Communism can only be the result of personal and collective self-emancipation, so at best the role of the state is to lead by example, to attempt to educate, and to create other conditions where people can become communists on their own accord. But that is different into "making them communists" in any literal sense. This is why Lenin and Trotsky always preferred methods of persuasion to methods of direct coercion. They understood that such coercion was antithetical to the idea of communism and self-emancipation.

I agree with all of this, with one caveat. At best, the state would lead by example; coercion is antithetical to self-emancipation and therefore to communism. However, wouldn't the worker's state in the initial stage still surpress reactionary proletarians in some manner? Does Lenin assume these elements will be taken care of during the DotP period, or that they will be a small enough faction to allow their reactionary ideas democratic representation in the state? I sincerely doubt Lenin would mean the latter, and I somewhat doubt he didn't mean the former.

[Lucretia]

I agree with all of this, with one caveat. At best, the state would lead by example; coercion is antithetical to self-emancipation and therefore to communism. However, wouldn't the worker's state in the initial stage still surpress reactionary proletarians in some manner? Does Lenin assume these elements will be taken care of during the DotP period, or that they will be a small enough faction to allow their reactionary ideas democratic representation in the state? I sincerely doubt Lenin would mean the latter, and I somewhat doubt he didn't mean the former.

To the extent that they are actively intervening in the class struggle on the side of counter-revolutionaries, coercion would be necessary. But I would just reiterate my point that the suppression of those counter-revolutionaries creates the conditions for the transition to socialism. It shouldn't be confused with the actual transition, which is a process of people assuming for themselves greater and greater control over their lives. Also, there must certainly be room for political pluralism in a workers'state. Where that shades into active counter-revolution is a decision to be made on a case-by-case basis. But what I am certain of is that Lenin would be very cautious in making such a decision, as we both agree he tended to want to use direct coercion only as a last resort.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

thanks again!

I still have a couple of lingering questions about Lenin's alleged equivocation about the term socialism after State and Revolution, and about Marx and Engels' discussion of the stages of communism, but even if these aren't answered I am quite satisfied with our discussion. :)