Socialism vs Communism

[Synergy]

I've considered myself a socialist for a year or two now and only recently have started looking into other leftist ideologies.

I'm having a hard time understanding what communism actually is and how it differs from socialism. Every definition I read seems to be different from the last (half joking there) and I'm not making a lot of progress. Is this where all the split groups come from? I mean communism can't be stateless and state controlled at the same time unless were talking about different versions here. Furthermore, if the state has complete control where does that leave worker owned companies?

[Jimmie Higgins]

The common way people in the US are taught about these is that socialism means "democratic-socialism" of the European kind and Communism means a one party-state which also runs the economy as in the USSR or China.

As for revolutionary Marxists and anarchists, however, generally these terms are either used interchangeably, or they are used to distinguish between a period of initial post-revolution worker control over society when remnants of the old system and other classes still exist to a certain extent (socialism) and a fully developed classless and stateless society (communism).

[RedMaterialist]

I've considered myself a socialist for a year or two now and only recently have started looking into other leftist ideologies.

I'm having a hard time understanding what communism actually is and how it differs from socialism. Every definition I read seems to be different from the last (half joking there) and I'm not making a lot of progress. Is this where all the split groups come from? I mean communism can't be stateless and state controlled at the same time unless were talking about different versions here. Furthermore, if the state has complete control where does that leave worker owned companies?

Under communism the state as a force for class suppression will no longer exist. Under the dictatorship of the workers the capitalist class will have been eliminated, one hopes peacefully. So, there will be no such thing as "state control." Companies will be owned by society, and the concept of "private ownership" (as opposed to personal ownership of one's own property) will no longer exist. The ownership of property for the purpose of appropriating and profiting from other peoples' labor will have been eliminated.

[Manic Impressive]

The common way people in the US are taught about these is that socialism means "democratic-socialism"
Democratic socialism suggests that any other form of socialism is undemocratic. Most of us are democratic socialists. What we're not, well I'm not, is a social democrat.

[Ostrinski]

Most of us understand socialism and communism pretty interchangeably, or at least as the same mode of production and as worker-run economies. The "socialists" you see that are quite eager to distinguish between them are in fact social democrats, i.e. they believe in capitalism with a human face.

So in a word, no distinguished socialist would not also refer to themselves as a communist.

[Grenzer]

The "socialists" you see that are quite eager to distinguish between them are in fact social democrats, i.e. they believe in capitalism with a human face.

That's actually just fairly standard Keynesian liberalism. Actual Social-Democracy(a political trend which seeks to achieve genuine socialism through reforms within capitalism) is by and large an extinct breed.. probably even more marginal than communists are.

The demarcation between a liberal and a social-democrat comes with the former's goal of making capitalism more tolerable and the latter's goal of eliminating it entirely within the bourgeois framework(which is impossible, as we all know).

[Jimmie Higgins]

Democratic socialism suggests that any other form of socialism is undemocratic. Most of us are democratic socialists. Well yes of course. These terms change over time, maybe a more precise term would be parliamentary socialism. But most people within and without the current radical left accept "Democratic Socialism" in that specific sense - at least in the US. But it meant different things at different times. This is the whole reason that we all have to qualify what we mean by "socialism" or "communism" when speaking to the general public. If you go on about specific Marxist or even more specific tendency jargon without either updating to modern analogues or qualifying things, then language like Marxist "alienation" and "dictatorship of the proletariat" and will mean something awfully different to an average person on the street. They'll think you're talking about socially-isolated Autocratic Dictators or something :lol:.

It sucks to have to qualify these basic and fundamental terms, communism as a stateless society not a society with an all-powerful state, but this is the cold war legacy our era of radicals have been left with. Until there is a new mass radical movement that clearly fights for this kind of society, we're just going to have to deal with explaining and re-explaining what we mean.

[Ostrinski]

That's actually just fairly standard Keynesian liberalism. Actual Social-Democracy(a political trend which seeks to achieve genuine socialism through reforms within capitalism) is by and large an extinct breed.. probably even more marginal than communists are.

The demarcation between a liberal and a social-democrat comes with the former's goal of making capitalism more tolerable and the latter's goal of eliminating it entirely within the bourgeois framework(which is impossible, as we all know).Quite so comrade. Though, anyone who considers themselves a social democrat in today's time is probably just a Keynesian liberal.

[Paul Cockshott]

In my view the distinction between socialism and communism is that the former is a predominantly publicly or collectively owned economy but which retains a monetary system and in which people are paid money wages for public work. A communist economy gets rid of money and uses a system of labour accounts which people top up by working and which they can withdraw goods from public shops/warehouses up to the hours they have worked.

[Dave B]

Joseph Stalin explained what stateless socialism was without wage labour and political power in 1906; before he became a revisionist



ANARCHISM or SOCIALISM?




III PROLETARIAN SOCIALISM






Future society will be socialist society. This means primarily, that there will be no classes in that society; there will be neither capitalists nor proletarians and, consequently, there will be no exploitation. In that society there will be only workers engaged in collective labour.



Future society will be socialist society. This means also that, with the abolition of exploitation commodity production and buying and selling will also be abolished and, therefore, there will be no room for buyers and sellers of labour power, for employers and employed -- there will be only free workers.
Future society will be socialist society. This means, lastly, that in that society the abolition of wage-labour will be accompanied by the complete abolition of the private ownership of the instruments and means of production; there will be neither poor proletarians nor rich capitalists -- there will be only workers who collectively own all the land and minerals, all the forests, all the factories and mills, all the railways, etc.



Where there are no classes, where there are neither rich nor poor, there is no need for a state, there is no


page 337

need either for political power, which oppresses the poor and protects the rich. Consequently, in socialist society there will be no need for the existence of political power


Lastly, it is obvious that free and comradely labour should result in an equally comradely, and complete, satisfaction of all needs in the future socialist society This means that if future society demands from each of its members as much labour as he can perform, it, in its turn, must provide each member with all the products he needs. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! -- such is the basis upon which the future collectivist system must be created.



It goes without saying that in the first stage of socialism, when elements who have not yet grown accustomed to work are being drawn into the new way of life, when the productive forces also will not yet have been sufficiently developed and there will still be "dirty" and "clean" work to do, the application of the principle: "to each according to his needs," will undoubtelly be greatly hindered and, as a consequence, society will be obliged temporarily to take some other path, a middle path. But it is also clear that when future society runs into its groove, when the survivals of capitalism will have been eradicated, the only principle that will conform to socialist society will be the one pointed out above.
That is why Marx said in 1875:


page 339

"In a higher phase of communist (i.e., socialist) society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labour, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labour, has vanished; after labour has become not only a means of livelihood but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual . . . only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois law be crossed in iis entirety and society inscribe on its banners: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'" (see Critique of the Gotha Programme (http://www.marx2mao.com/M&E/CGP75.html)).


Such, in general, is the picture of future socialist society according to the theory of Marx.

http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/AS07.html#c3


As did Lenin;



Communist labour in the narrower and stricter sense of the term is labour performed gratis for the benefit of society, labour performed not as a definite duty, not for the purpose of obtaining a right to certain products, not according to previously established and legally fixed quotas, but voluntary labour, irrespective of quotas; it is labour performed without expectation of reward, without reward as a condition, labour performed because it has become a habit to work for the common good, and because of a conscious realisation (that has become a habit) of the necessity of working for the common good—labour as the requirement of a healthy organism.

It must be clear to everybody that we, i.e., our society, our social system, are still a very long way from the application of this form of labour on a broad, really mass scale.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/apr/11.htm

[Paul Cockshott]

Yes that article by Stalin more or less set the terms of debate for the question in the USSR. Later on Soviet leaders applied the term socialism to what Stalin in that article called the 'middle path' and reserved the term communism for what he amended Marx as calling the higher phase of 'communist ( i.e. socialist ) society', the (ie socialist) was an addition by Stalin to what Marx had written. Khrushchev in particular set it as the aim of the USSR to achieve this higher phase of communism by the 1980s.
In the process the Soviets used the term socialism for the type of economy I cited - publicly owned production organised by a conscious plan, no capitalists or property income, but payment of money wages. They saw communism as involving a move to the free distribution of goods, and thus dependent on the achievement of material plenty. This meant that in the 50s and 60s the growth of industrial output was seen as the key to achieving communism. The Chinese Communists under Mao took a different line, saying that the key to moving to communism was not the forces of production but the relations of production.

It is worth noting that the Soviets forgot to mention the stage that marx had described as the first stage of communism - one in which money had already been replaced by labour vouchers. In China this was taken somewhat more seriously and in Chinese agriculture during the period of the People's Communes a system of payment analogous to this was adopted. In industry, the Maoists argued that the retention of 8 different wage grades was remnant of bourgeois right, and that different wage grades would have to be abolished in the move to communism.

Both the Chinese and Soviet communists laid emphasis on the necessity to overcome the differences between mental and manual labour ( see here http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-8/mswv8_64.htm and http://archive.org/details/ProgramOfTheCommunistPartyOfTheSovietUnion_150) - something Marx had mentioned. Their approaches to solving the contradiction were somewhat different.

[leftistman]

Communism is a classless, stateless, moneyless society that is managed directly by the workers and the community. The means of production are owned collectively by the community. Karl Marx summarized a communist society as functioning according the virtue, "from each according to his ability, from each according to his need." This means that people work for their own leisure because work will become a creative and pleasurable activity. Karl Marx theorized that communism would be preceded by the dictatorship of the proletariat, or socialism. Under Marx's version of socialism(there are many different trends of socialism), the workers will take control of the state and use it for their own interests. Everything would fall under the ownership of the state; the means of production, property, all utilities, everything. There is still money and a state under socialism, but utilities such as housing, education, health care, food, anything necessary is provided by the state. The state will eventually wither away according to Marxist thought.

I hope that I have answered all your questions well, comrade.

[Blake's Baby]

No he didn't.

Marx theorised three stages:
1 - the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, which is a class society in which the proletariat administers the final phase of capitalism;
2 - followed by the 'lower phase' of socialism/communism, which is characterised by the inability of society to produce everything to fulfill human needs, but classes having ceased to exist as property no longer exists;
3 - and the 'higher phase' of socialism/communism, in which distribution is 'to each according to his need', ie society is capable of producing to fulfill human needs.

[Dave B]

For Lenin the road to ‘socialism’ in Rusia was through state capitalism



At present……….. in Russia…… it is one and the same road that leads ……… to both large-scale state capitalism and to socialism, through one and the same intermediary station called “national accounting and control of production and distribution”. Those who fail to understand this are committing an unpardonable mistake in economics. Either they do not know the facts of life, do not see what actually exists and are unable to look the truth in the face, or they confine themselves to abstractly comparing “capitalism” with “socialism” and fail to study the concrete forms and stages of the transition that is taking place in our country.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm)

As it was for Mao’s China;


THE ONLY ROAD FOR THE TRANSFORMATION OF CAPITALIST INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE September 7, 1953







The transformation of capitalism into socialism is to be accomplished through state capitalism.

1. In the last three years or so we have done some work on this, but as we were otherwise occupied, we didn't exert ourselves enough. From now on we should make a bigger effort.

2. With more than three years of experience behind us, we can say with certainty that accomplishing the socialist transformation of private industry and commerce by means of state capitalism is a relatively sound policy and method.


http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/TC53.html


The ‘division of labour’ between the manual workers and the intellectuals was essential; with thousands of manual labourers being subjected to and submitting to the dictatorial will of the; ‘mental labour’ of individuals.


The Soviets At Work, By Nikolai Lenin



There is therefore absolutely no contradiction in principle between the Soviet (Socialist) democracy and the use of dictatorial power of individuals


we must say that every large machine industry—which is the material productive source and basis of Socialism—requires an absolute and strict unity of the will which directs the joint work of hundreds, thousands and tens of thousands of people. This necessity is obvious from the technical economic and historical standpoint, and has always been recognized as its prerequisite by all those who had given any thought to Socialism. But how can we secure a strict unity of will? By subjecting the will of thousands to the will of one.



At any rate, complete submission to a single will for the success of the processes of work organized on the type of large machine industry is absolutely necessary.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/mar/soviets.htm


Which is what makes it such an appealing idea for our Bolshevik bourgeois intelligentsia.


No prizes for guessing what Paul Cockshott will be doing in ‘socialism’.

[ckaihatsu]

we must say that every large machine industry—which is the material productive source and basis of Socialism—requires an absolute and strict unity of the will which directs the joint work of hundreds, thousands and tens of thousands of people. This necessity is obvious from the technical economic and historical standpoint, and has always been recognized as its prerequisite by all those who had given any thought to Socialism. But how can we secure a strict unity of will? By subjecting the will of thousands to the will of one.



At any rate, complete submission to a single will for the success of the processes of work organized on the type of large machine industry is absolutely necessary.


The historical context aside, it's not unreasonable *these* days to have a proletarian-democratic decision-making process, to arrive at a set policy for collectivist production -- once in place, a functional administration could then *carry out* the plan, as a "will of one".

[Камо́ Зэд]

Everyone else has done such a good job of explaining it in depth, I figured I'd slap together some slogan: From each according to his ability, to each according to his . . .



deeds (socialism); or
needs (communism).

[Blake's Baby]

That's not what Marx says.

He calls 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his work' a "socialist slogan" not "a description of socialism". It is a "socialist slogan" because it is a slogan used by 'some people who call themselves socialists' not because it describes something called 'socialism'.

Likewise when he describes 'from each according to his ability, to each according to their need' a "communist slogan" (not "a description of communism") it is because it is a slogan of 'people who call themselves communists'.

People can believe (or say they believe) all sorts of things about how to get to a classless communal society. They're all 'socialists' in that sense but their policies don't all result in 'socialism'. Socialism and communism aren't different stages, but 'people who call themselves socialists' and 'people who call themselves communists' might have different understandings of the route and/or the goal.

Look at the Socialist Party of Great Britain, for instance. They'd qualify as communists under your definition but they call themselves socialists.

[Камо́ Зэд]

That's not what Marx says.

He calls 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his work' a "socialist slogan" not "a description of socialism". It is a "socialist slogan" because it is a slogan used by 'some people who call themselves socialists' not because it describes something called 'socialism'.


Everyone else has done such a good job of explaining it in depth, I figured I'd slap together some slogan . . .

I'm not sure what we're arguing about.

[Blake's Baby]

Everyone else has done such a good job of explaining it in depth, I figured I'd slap together some slogan: From each according to his ability, to each according to his . . .



deeds (socialism)

Wrong.





2. needs (communism)

Wrong.

Marx didn't say these things were 'socialism' and 'communism'. He said they were slogans of 'socialist' and 'communist' groups.

[Камо́ Зэд]

Marx didn't say these things were 'socialism' and 'communism'. He said they were slogans of 'socialist' and 'communist' groups.

Right, and I said I was slapping together a slogan. I must ask a second time: what are we arguing about?

[ckaihatsu]

Everyone else has done such a good job of explaining it in depth, I figured I'd slap together some slogan: From each according to his ability, to each according to his . . .



deeds (socialism); or
needs (communism).



I'll go ahead and comment on this by noting that, relative to capitalism's inherent avaricious motivations, 'deeds' would be an improvement in the sense of being more people-centered, rather than external-oriented, as towards the making of profits.

But 'deeds' also reeks of moralism and is problematic from a material perspective since the issue of what people "should" do for each other, in a 'service' kind of way, is highly questionable and possibly extraneous.

That's why communism's 'needs' is far more to-the-point since it goes directly to the *destination* and works backwards to determine how to provide for the most-pressing humane *requirements*, as a priority of liberated common mass production.

[Камо́ Зэд]

But 'deeds' also reeks of moralism and is problematic from a material perspective since the issue of what people "should" do for each other, in a 'service' kind of way, is highly questionable and possibly extraneous.

Come back to Earth, comrade. Everything's okay. "Deeds" was just used here because it rhymes with "needs." The implication is that wages still exist in the lower phase of communism or during the transition from capitalism to communism.

[Paul Cockshott]

I dont think there is any mystery about what I will be doing after socialism, I will be retired or in my grave, unless Scotland is much closer to revolution than it looks.

[Blake's Baby]

Come back to Earth, comrade. Everything's okay. "Deeds" was just used here because it rhymes with "needs." The implication is that wages still exist in the lower phase of communism...

Which is why you really need to sort out your phasing. There will be no 'wages' in the lower stage of communism.


... or during the transition from capitalism to communism.

If you mean 'the final phase of capitalism' here I don't see a problem, but if you really think that there will be wages after the abolition of capitalism then that presents both a logical problem for you, and a political problem for the revolution.


Right, and I said I was slapping together a slogan. I must ask a second time: what are we arguing about?

Mostly whether your sloganeering expresses any political content and if so what.

You don't seem to know what 'socialism' and 'communism' mean, you conflate the DotP with the lower stage of communism, you think there will be wages in a post-capitalist world etc. In fact, it's difficult to see what content your 'socialism' has at all, that makes it different from capitalism.

[Synergy]

The common way people in the US are taught about these is that socialism means "democratic-socialism" of the European kind and Communism means a one party-state which also runs the economy as in the USSR or China.

As for revolutionary Marxists and anarchists, however, generally these terms are either used interchangeably, or they are used to distinguish between a period of initial post-revolution worker control over society when remnants of the old system and other classes still exist to a certain extent (socialism) and a fully developed classless and stateless society (communism).

So socialism is sort of an intermediate stage towards a stateless, classless, moneyless society? If this is the case, why are many socialist/communist nations run strictly by the state?

Also, what is the difference between communism and anarchism?

[Jimmie Higgins]

For Lenin the road to ‘socialism’ in Rusia was through state capitalism

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm)

As it was for Mao’s China;

THE ONLY ROAD FOR THE TRANSFORMATION OF CAPITALIST INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE September 7, 1953

http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/TC53.html

The ‘division of labour’ between the manual workers and the intellectuals was essential; with thousands of manual labourers being subjected to and submitting to the dictatorial will of the; ‘mental labour’ of individuals.

Which is what makes it such an appealing idea for our Bolshevik bourgeois intelligentsia.


Don't ask Dave B to explain the plot of the original Star Wars movie because it'd like go something like this: "A young man named Luke sets off for Space to reconcile with his estranged father for the purpose of making Ewoks dance".

1. The context of the arguments in these two descriptions of "state capitalism" are completely different. In the Mao article state capitalism is seen as you describe it: "the means" to reach socialism. But in the article by Lenin, what does he see as necissary for socialism, what does he argue right there in that piece:


Socialism is inconceivable without large-scale capitalist engineering based on the latest discoveries of modern science. It is inconceivable without planned state organisation, which keeps tens of millions of people to the strictest observance of a unified standard in production and distribution. We Marxists have always spoken of this, and it is not worth while wasting two seconds talking to people who do not understand even this (anarchists and a good half of the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries).



At the same time socialism is inconceivable unless the proletariat is the ruler of the state. This also is ABC. And history (which nobody, except Menshevik blockheads of the first order, ever expected to bring about “complete” socialism smoothly, gently, easily and simply) has taken such a peculiar course that it has given birth in 1918 to two unconnected halves of socialism existing side by side like two future chickens in the single shell of international imperialism. In 1918 Germany and Russia have become the most striking embodiment of the material realisation of the economic, the productive and the socio-economic conditions for socialism, on the one hand, and the political conditions, on the other.



A successful proletarian revolution in Germany would immediately and very easily smash any shell of imperialism (which unfortunately is made of the best steel, and hence cannot be broken by the efforts of any . . . chicken) and would bring about the victory of world socialism for certain, without any difficulty, or with slight difficulty—if, of course, by “difficulty” we mean difficult on a world historical scale, and not in the parochial philistine sense.


So Lenin's argument is that two things are necessary for socialism: worker's power and the material basis for socialism. Russia didn't have that as we all know, but it did have what he calls in the article "confiscation" - that workers took over society which Lenin says can be done through working class determination - but to transform society into socialism it isn't a question of desire and determination, but of development. I think the quote above shows that he thought that Revolution in Germany was the road to socialism, state capitalism in his view was an immediate necessity in Russia not because it is "the only path to socialism" as in the Mao piece, but because it was an immediate way for the working class to organize society in opposition to private small capitalism of the rural population.

Is argument isn't "state-capitalism" instead of socialism, his argument is that because of the situation in Russia at that time, the options were in his view either the political power of the workers must be used to direct the economy in a way that will be more favorable for becoming socialist, or the petty-bourgeois majority would, out of necessity and class-interests form the base of individual capitalist relations and production becoming dominant.

In fact far from a post-Stalin "stagiest" idea needing state-capitalism to get to socialism on principle, Lenin argues that this is particular to the situation in Russia:


But Bukharin went astray because he did not go deep enough into the specific features of the situation in Russia at the present time—an exceptional situation when we, the Russian proletariat, are in advance of any Britain or any Germany as regards our political order, as regards the strength of the workers’ political power, but are behind the most backward West-European country as regards organising a good state capitalism, as regards our level of culture and the degree of material and productive preparedness for the “introduction” of socialism. Is it not clear that the specific nature of the present situation creates the need for a specific type of “buying out” which the workers must offer to the most cultured, the most skilled, the most capable organisers among the capitalists who are ready to enter the service of Soviet power and to help honestly in organising “state” production on the largest possible scale? Is it not clear that in this specific situation we must make, every effort to avoid two mistakes, both of which are of a petty-bourgeois nature? On the one hand, it would be a fatal mistake to declare that since there is a discrepancy between our economic “forces” and our political strength, it “follows” that we should not have seized power.[4] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm#fw4) Such an argument can be advanced only by a "man in a muffler”,[5] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm#fw5) who forgets that there will always be such a “discrepancy”, that it always exists in the development of nature as well as in the development of society, that only by a series of attempts—each of which, taken by itself, will be one sided and will suffer from certain inconsistencies—will complete socialism be created by the revolutionary co-operation of the proletarians of all countries. So again, world revolution is ultimately necessary, but in his view in Russia state capitalism was needed.

Lenin's entire argument here assumes and takes as a given, worker's power in Russia. As far as the capitalist managers, he is not arguing to CREATE a division of labor as you claim, he says one exists already and the point is to subbordinate that already existing division of labor to the power of the worker Soviets:


“In connection with the restoration of capitalist management"—these are the words with which the “Left Communists” hope to “defend themselves”. A perfectly useless defence, because, in the first place, when putting “management” in the hands of capitalists Soviet power appoints workers’ Commissars or workers’ committees who watch the manager’s every step, who learn from his management experience and who not only have the right to appeal against his orders, but can secure his removal through the organs of Soviet power. In the second place, “management” is entrusted to capitalists only for executive functions while at work, the conditions of which are determined by the Soviet power, by which they may be abolished or revised. In the third place, “management” is entrusted by the Soviet power to capitalists not as capitalists, but as technicians or organisers for higher salaries. And the workers know very well that ninety-nine per cent of the organisers and first-class technicians of really large-scale and giant enterprises, trusts or other establishments belong to the capitalist class. But it is precisely these people whom we, the proletarian party, must appoint to “manage” the labour process and the organisation of production, for there are no other people who have practical experience in this matter. The workers, having grown out of the infancy when they could have been misled by “Left” phrases or petty-bourgeois loose thinking, are advancing towards socialism precisely through the capitalist management of trusts, through gigantic machine industry, through enterprises which have a turnover of several millions per year—only through such a system of production and such enterprises. The workers are not petty bourgeois. They are not afraid of large-scale “state capitalism”, they prize it as their proletarian weapon which their Soviet power will use against small proprietary disintegration and disorganisation.

So in the absence of large-scale capitalist industry and relations, how are the necessities of life to be produced in Russia? For Lenin, if industry can be developed in the context of worker's political power, then the working class is still the main producer and can use it's political power to keep the capitalist specialists in check and will also ensure that the non-working class majority of the population do not dominate through individual production, leading to the possibility of a challenge to worker's power altogether.

Later Lenin said that the influence of these specialists in society and the party in particular were an increasing problem Russia. But again, he takes for granted that worker's power is fundamental in this equation (again, Germany has no worker's political power, but it has the material ability for socialism whereas Russia was the opposite in Lenin's view) and this is where the problems actually come it - not in the ideas of Lenin, but in the failure of Revolution outside of Russia and the weakness of worker's power in Russia. What Lenin couldn't foresee was that the threat was not just from outside, from the small farmer and landowner but internal counter-revolution as well, which in my view is what happened in Russia.

At any rate, this focus on the political power of the working class to subordinate the other classes which is clear if you actually read the piece, is totally absent from Mao's list you quoted.


8. Some capitalists keep themselves at a great distance from the state and have not changed their profits-before-everything mentality. Some workers are advancing too fast and won't allow the capitalists to make any profit at all. We should try to educate these workers and capitalists and help them gradually (but the sooner the better) adapt themselves to our state policy, namely, to make China's private industry and commerce mainly serve the nation's economy and the people's livelihood and partly earn profits for the capitalists and in this way embark on the path of state capitalism.

This is a completely different conception of "state-capitalism" as the context and aims are different. Workers power and international revolution have no place in this equation above - state-capitalism becomes a means to produce for the sake of increased production, not as a means for the working class to try and hold onto power until revolutions in Germany or England made socialism materially possible.

[Prinskaj]

So socialism is sort of an intermediate stage towards a stateless, classless, moneyless society? If this is the case, why are many socialist/communist nations run strictly by the state? Not really, that would be the view of the marxist-leninist tradition. Most of the revolutionary left considers the two words synonymous, at least to some degree.

[Yuppie Grinder]

If you call yourself a socialist but not a communist, you don't know what socialism is.

[ckaihatsu]

But 'deeds' also reeks of moralism and is problematic from a material perspective since the issue of what people "should" do for each other, in a 'service' kind of way, is highly questionable and possibly extraneous.





Come back to Earth, comrade. Everything's okay. "Deeds" was just used here because it rhymes with "needs." The implication is that wages still exist in the lower phase of communism or during the transition from capitalism to communism.


You think I'm "freaking out" -- ? That's quite a projection of characterizing to make, and you're using it to sidestep the content that you're purportedly addressing.

Then you go on to trivialize *your own* statement, saying your choice of words was more for stylistic reasons of *rhyming* than for its content -- does that mean that you don't want others like myself to address what you're saying, since you're not going to take *your own* choice of words seriously -- ?

Everything's *not* okay if the world's current configuration is one of busywork and faux-services for the sake of "the economy" -- it's an insult all around, and one which our politics is capable of addressing and overcoming, if we use it well.

[human strike]

Socialism and communism are not state of affairs to be established, they are forms of social relations, just as capitalism is.

"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence." - Marx

[Paul Cockshott]

This is a completely different conception of "state-capitalism" as the context and aims are different. Workers power and international revolution have no place in this equation above - state-capitalism becomes a means to produce for the sake of increased production, not as a means for the working class to try and hold onto power until revolutions in Germany or England made socialism materially possible.
If you look at the piece by Mao that I linked to you will see that in talking of state capitalism he was talking of only 20% of the capitalist sector, 80% was directly expropriated into state ownership. The remaining 20% was going to convert to socialism via state capitalism.

On page 335 there is an incorrect explanation of the process by which capitalist ownership changed into state ownership in China. The book only explains our policy toward national capital but not our policy toward bureaucratic capital (expropriation). In order to convert the property of the bureaucratic capitalist to public ownership we chose the method of expropriation.

In paragraph 2 of page 335 the experience of passing through the state capitalist form in order to transform capitalism is treated as a singular and special experience; its universal significance is denied. The countries of Western Europe and the United States have a very high level of capitalist development, and the controlling positions are held by a minority of monopoly capitalists. But there are a great number of small and middle capitalists as well. Thus it is said that American capital is concentrated but also widely distributed. After a successful revolution in these countries monopoly capital will undoubtedly have to be expropriated, but will the small and middle capitalists likewise be uniformly expropriated? It may well be the case that some form of state capitalism will have to be adopted to transform them.

Our northeast provinces may be thought of as a region with a high level of capitalist development. The same is true for Kiangsu (with centers in Shanghai and the southern part of the province). If state capitalism could work in these areas, tell me why the same policy could not work in other countries which resemble these provincial sectors?

The method the Japanese used when they held our northeast provinces was to eliminate the major local capitalists and turn their enterprises into Japanese state-managed, or in some cases monopoly capitalist enterprises. For the small and middle capitalists they established subsidiary companies as a means of imposing control.

Our transformation of national capital passed through three stages: private manufacture on state order, unified government purchase and sale of private output, joint state private operation (of individual units and of whole complexes). Each phase was carried out in a methodical way. This prevented any damage to production, which actually developed as the transformation progressed. We have gained much new experience with state capitalism; for one example, the providing of capitalists with fixed interest after the joint state-private operation phase. (Mao)
Large firms were expropriated small capitalists were paid a wage plus a fixed interest of 5% for 20 years on the original value of their capital. The interest payments actually stopped after 15 years.
He makes the point that even in the USA some form of state capitalist sector might have to be retained for former small companies for some time. That would be one approach, but it might be possible to turn these immediately into workers cooperatives as another approach. Whether the former small capitalists were compensated by interest payments might depend on how vital their particular skills were to the enterprise.

[Jimmie Higgins]

If you look at the piece by Mao that I linked to you will see that in talking of state capitalism he was talking of only 20% of the capitalist sector, 80% was directly expropriated into state ownership. The remaining 20% was going to convert to socialism via state capitalism.My point was not one of percentages, but of the absence of any consideration of worker's power.

[ckaihatsu]

If you look at the piece by Mao that I linked to you will see that in talking of state capitalism he was talking of only 20% of the capitalist sector, 80% was directly expropriated into state ownership. The remaining 20% was going to convert to socialism via state capitalism.





After a successful revolution in these countries monopoly capital will undoubtedly have to be expropriated, but will the small and middle capitalists likewise be uniformly expropriated?





Large firms were expropriated small capitalists were paid a wage plus a fixed interest of 5% for 20 years on the original value of their capital. The interest payments actually stopped after 15 years.
He makes the point that even in the USA some form of state capitalist sector might have to be retained for former small companies for some time. That would be one approach, but it might be possible to turn these immediately into workers cooperatives as another approach. Whether the former small capitalists were compensated by interest payments might depend on how vital their particular skills were to the enterprise.




He makes the point that even in the USA some form of state capitalist sector might have to be retained for former small companies for some time.


This is interesting, and it raises the question of *political rationale* -- why, under optimal revolutionary conditions, would *any* concession, as for financial-type considerations into the indefinite future, be granted to owners of *any* size -- ? (Even the retention of any system of financial-type valuations would be contrary to the aims of revolution.)

Depending on political conditions any of these kinds of concessions would have to have a political rationale, and would effectively be *tactical retreats*, for whatever reason. They shouldn't be *allowed* if at all possible.

[Manic Impressive]

Well yes of course. These terms change over time, maybe a more precise term would be parliamentary socialism.
Even worse :scared:


But most people within and without the current radical left accept "Democratic Socialism" in that specific sense - at least in the US.
I would say only in the US, except that I know of one glaring exception. Regardless the point is that by calling them socialist you are acknowledging them as socialists. In some way the same as us. They are not. Calling them what they are known as internationally and historically helps us come to a common understanding within the language which we share. But also serves as a powerful reminder of the mistakes of a failed movement aimed at economic and social change, lest we forget and repeat those same mistakes.


This is the whole reason that we all have to qualify what we mean by "socialism" or "communism" when speaking to the general public. If you go on about specific Marxist or even more specific tendency jargon without either updating to modern analogues or qualifying things, then language like Marxist "alienation" and "dictatorship of the proletariat" and will mean something awfully different to an average person on the street. They'll think you're talking about socially-isolated Autocratic Dictators or something :lol:.
Made that mistake the other day, was speaking to this woman and she said "You want to abolish the state?" and I responded "the state is a means of class control". She looked at me as if I had two heads. Judged that one wrong :p. So I totally get what you're saying but when defining socialism/communism and other related political terminology I feel it only obfuscates the terms by telling people that some capitalists are socialists. It feeds into what is a real problem especially in the states of all this mixed economy crap and socialism being anything that the state runs. Really it's submitting to a right wing definition of socialism.

[Blake's Baby]

So socialism is sort of an intermediate stage towards a stateless, classless, moneyless society? If this is the case, why are many socialist/communist nations run strictly by the state?...

They are not 'communist/socialist nations', they are (or usually were) 'nations controlled by the communist/socialist paty'.

The party in power in the USA is the 'Democratic Party'. Does that mean everything barack Obama does = 'democracy'? No.

The party in power in the USSR was the 'Communist Party'. Does that mean everything Stalin did = 'communism'? No.


Also, what is the difference between communism and anarchism?

There are two main strands of communist theory; they are Marxism and Anarchism. They propose different routes to the same goal - a classless moneyless stateless society.

So if you're an Anarchist-Communist, there is no difference - Anarchism is true Communism, and Marxists are just a new class of bureaucrats in waiting. If you're a Marxist, the difference is that Anarchism is an idealist and petit-bourgeois current that was once part of the workers' movement but these days has nothing to offer the working class.

More or less, anyway.

[Paul Cockshott]

This is interesting, and it raises the question of *political rationale* -- why, under optimal revolutionary conditions, would *any* concession, as for financial-type considerations into the indefinite future, be granted to owners of *any* size -- ? (Even the retention of any system of financial-type valuations would be contrary to the aims of revolution.)

Depending on political conditions any of these kinds of concessions would have to have a political rationale, and would effectively be *tactical retreats*, for whatever reason. They shouldn't be *allowed* if at all possible.

Well conditions are not always optimal. I suspect that these concessions were made for two reasons:
a) to politically neutralise opposition by the national bourgeoisie whilst communist power was consolidated
b) to prevent disruption to production which might have occured had the owners of smaller firms gone Awol and fled to Taiwan or Hong Kong.

In the USA at least, a proportion of the smaller firms will be ones in which the owner has some special technical skill which they still exercise in the operation of the firm. Again in these cases it would be necessary to prevent disruption of production to keep them working there. Depending on the circumstances it might be advantageous to incentivise them by some form of compensation for their capital.


My point was not one of percentages, but of the absence of any consideration of worker's power.

I think of you read the article you will see that Mao saw workers state power as the essence of the matter, and that if that were not exercised you would have a reversion to capitalism - a danger that he was obviously right to warn against given subsequent experience.

[ckaihatsu]

[W]as speaking to this woman and she said "You want to abolish the state?" and I responded "the state is a means of class control". She looked at me as if I had two heads. Judged that one wrong :p.


Maybe next time affect a gentlemanly tone and in a disaffected, high-minded voice say, "We would *hope* that the state would decide *on its own* to just *wither away*, and we are prepared to provide suitable encouragement to that end."


x D

[ckaihatsu]

Well conditions are not always optimal. I suspect that these concessions were made for two reasons:
a) to politically neutralise opposition by the national bourgeoisie whilst communist power was consolidated
b) to prevent disruption to production which might have occured had the owners of smaller firms gone Awol and fled to Taiwan or Hong Kong.




I think of you read the article you will see that Mao saw workers state power as the essence of the matter, and that if that were not exercised you would have a reversion to capitalism - a danger that he was obviously right to warn against given subsequent experience.


You may have a point from a *historical* perspective -- relating to a one-off period in history where many backward countries were playing catch-up regarding industrialization, but that's no longer the foot-race that it was in the 20th century.





In the USA at least, a proportion of the smaller firms will be ones in which the owner has some special technical skill which they still exercise in the operation of the firm. Again in these cases it would be necessary to prevent disruption of production to keep them working there. Depending on the circumstances it might be advantageous to incentivise them by some form of compensation for their capital.


Sorry, but this is rank fetishism over specialization -- the technical mindset is apples-and-oranges in regards to politics since I could just as readily ask why those owners haven't gotten on board with the revolution.

[Камо́ Зэд]

Which is why you really need to sort out your phasing. There will be no 'wages' in the lower stage of communism.

If you mean 'the final phase of capitalism' here I don't see a problem, but if you really think that there will be wages after the abolition of capitalism then that presents both a logical problem for you, and a political problem for the revolution.

A wage is that which is paid to a worker based on the amount of work he does. Maybe you thought I said "mages" would persist? Because magic does present a lot of logical problems . . .


Mostly whether your sloganeering expresses any political content and if so what.

You don't seem to know what 'socialism' and 'communism' mean, you conflate the DotP with the lower stage of communism, you think there will be wages in a post-capitalist world etc. In fact, it's difficult to see what content your 'socialism' has at all, that makes it different from capitalism.

Dude, breathe. Maybe you should take a break from this thread and skim my other posts? Consider that just because you've made a hostile-looking ass of yourself in this thread doesn't mean to me that you know absolutely nothing about civil debate.

[Камо́ Зэд]

You think I'm "freaking out" -- ? That's quite a projection of characterizing to make, and you're using it to sidestep the content that you're purportedly addressing.

I must've missed this part during registration at RevLeft, the one where you click the box next to "I agree to relinquish my sense of humor."


Then you go on to trivialize *your own* statement, saying your choice of words was more for stylistic reasons of *rhyming* than for its content -- does that mean that you don't want others like myself to address what you're saying, since you're not going to take *your own* choice of words seriously -- ?

I'm going to ask you a serious question: do you sometimes say things that you do not intend to be taken seriously? Just think back to what you did today: was there maybe a small window of time during which you were talking about something in a frivolous way? I've logged in quite a few posts on RevLeft, to be fair, so think I'm entitled to the odd throwaway.

[Paul Cockshott]

ckaihatsu, I it is a matter of political calculation and expediency. Consider the many small medical firms in the US whose owners are doctors. They have real skills and it may be necessary to buy them off till they retire.

[Blake's Baby]

A wage is that which is paid to a worker based on the amount of work he does. Maybe you thought I said "mages" would persist? Because magic does present a lot of logical problems . . .

Thing is, you're not funny.

This is the Learning forum. The answers you give here are supposed to be factual.

Pardon me if I assumed that, in chosing to answer someone's question, you intended to be taken seriously. If you didn't, then that constitutes spamming the Learning forum. Take it to Chit Chat instead, have fun with substituting letters in famous revolutionary slogans there. Chortle over 'Peace Bread Sand' and 'Turn the Imperialist Bar into a Civil bar' over there, not here.

If you think that workers will be paid wages in socialism, then you need to educate yourself with what socialism is.




Dude, breathe. Maybe you should take a break from this thread and skim my other posts? Consider that just because you've made a hostile-looking ass of yourself in this thread doesn't mean to me that you know absolutely nothing about civil debate.

Fine. But you don't seem to know what the Learning forum is for. Maybe you should acquaint yourself with that before you criticise others. There's an etiquette here that you're not observing. You posted something in Learning containing a couple of large errors and when I (helpfully) pointed out that you were wrong you switched from assserting your errors to having a go at those (not just me) who were trying to correct you, and started to claim that it wasn't to be taken seriously. Don't post stuff in Learning that isn't meant to be taken seriously, and when people point out your errors in Learning, don't accuse them of not being able to conduct a civil debate.

[Paul Cockshott]

If this is a learning forum Blake, you must recognise that your contention about there being no wages in socialist economies is somewhat of a minority view hisyorically.

[Камо́ Зэд]

This is the Learning forum. The answers you give here are supposed to be factual.

Then most posts in the Learning forum don't belong there.


Pardon me if I assumed that, in chosing to answer someone's question, you intended to be taken seriously. If you didn't, then that constitutes spamming the Learning forum. Take it to Chit Chat instead, have fun with substituting letters in famous revolutionary slogans there. Chortle over 'Peace Bread Sand' and 'Turn the Imperialist Bar into a Civil bar' over there, not here.

Will you listen to yourself? I understand this is the learning forum but a trivial post of fewer than one hundred eighty characters is nothing to get this worked up about. Consider, for one moment, how you could've handled this differently; you realize that you have now made that tiny post, which in your opinion doesn't even belong here, the main focus of this thread. And all because it never occurred to you to write something like, "No, I think that's wrong," rather than, "You don't know anything about socialism." Seriously. It's not like I don't have other fucking posts on this website; maybe you should take those into consideration before deciding I don't know what I'm talking about.


If you think that workers will be paid wages in socialism, then you need to educate yourself with what socialism is.

See above. There really isn't any kind of need for you to act like this much of a pretentious douchebag.


Fine. But you don't seem to know what the Learning forum is for. Maybe you should acquaint yourself with that before you criticise others. There's an etiquette here that you're not observing.

That you didn't see why this comment was absurdly hypocritical before you posted makes me think you don't pay attention when you write.

[Manic Impressive]

If this is a learning forum Blake, you must recognise that your contention about there being no wages in socialist economies is somewhat of a minority view hisyorically.
True true on our side we have Karl Marx and on your side you have the Labour party, the Conservatives, the republicans and Democrats. Shit dude you've got the whole of capitalism on your side. Your opinion is certainly the most hysterically wide spread.

[ckaihatsu]

I must've missed this part during registration at RevLeft, the one where you click the box next to "I agree to relinquish my sense of humor."


Yeah, it was there, but it's a good thing you didn't check it and instead went for the one that said, "I will only attempt humor in a defensive way or at socially inappropriate times."

= )





I'm going to ask you a serious question: do you sometimes say things that you do not intend to be taken seriously? Just think back to what you did today: was there maybe a small window of time during which you were talking about something in a frivolous way? I've logged in quite a few posts on RevLeft, to be fair, so think I'm entitled to the odd throwaway.


No prob.

= )

[ckaihatsu]

ckaihatsu, I it is a matter of political calculation and expediency. Consider the many small medical firms in the US whose owners are doctors. They have real skills and it may be necessary to buy them off till they retire.


Paul, there's nothing further to discuss here -- you've already made it more-than-apparent that you would -- *programmatically* -- deify certain kinds of people in society based on their profession and let them off the hook politically.

I don't know what kinds of conditions you're thinking of when you invoke this approach, but what's more to the point is that *you're not even specifying the conditions* -- (!) You're conceiving of some kind of artificial delineation wherein those in the white-collar professions would *all*, *automatically*, be conservative and counterrevolutionary in the face of changing political conditions.

I will leave you to this bit of irrationality -- it's not my problem.

[Камо́ Зэд]

Yeah, it was there, but it's a good thing you didn't check it and instead went for the one that said, "I will only attempt humor in a defensive way or at socially inappropriate times."


I agree with the comrade above me. Capitalism is a lot like Daniel Day Lewis beating a preacher to death with a bowling pin.

What is it about RevLefters and making sweeping judgments about someone's character after one post?

[ckaihatsu]

What is it about RevLefters and making sweeping judgments about someone's character after one post?


I think it's some sort of jockeying for position for after the revolution....


= D

[Paul Cockshott]

Paul, there's nothing further to discuss here -- you've already made it more-than-apparent that you would -- *programmatically* -- deify certain kinds of people in society based on their profession and let them off the hook politically.

I don't know what kinds of conditions you're thinking of when you invoke this approach, but what's more to the point is that *you're not even specifying the conditions* -- (!) You're conceiving of some kind of artificial delineation wherein those in the white-collar professions would *all*, *automatically*, be conservative and counterrevolutionary in the face of changing political conditions.

I will leave you to this bit of irrationality -- it's not my problem.

It is not a matter of deifying people. I agree with what Mao says about the need to struggle with an remould the outlook of the existing intelligensia. But in recognising that small capitalists or people with monopoly skills are likely to be less supportive of socialism than the working class is, I am just stating the obvious. The particular example of Doctors and winning their cooperation is based on historical experience. It was something that had to be dealt with when the NHS was set up in the UK in the 40s. Younger doctors identified with the new system of socialised medicine, but in order to overcome the opposition of the older doctors to the new system of free medicine Nye Bevan had as he said 'to stuff their mouths with gold'.

In the long run, when the medical schools have turned out sufficient new doctors you can move to a system where the hourly pay of doctors is just the same as any other trade, but so long as they have a relative monopoly they have a strong bargaining position.

[Blake's Baby]

If this is a learning forum Blake, you must recognise that your contention about there being no wages in socialist economies is somewhat of a minority view hisyorically.

Most people believe that the word 'communism' refers to 'brutal state captalist dictatorship'. But I know it doesn't mean that. By the same token, you can believe that there will be wages in something that you can call 'socialism'. But that doesn't mean that it's socialism as Marx and Engels, for example, understood it.

This is the Learning form, it's not the 'conventional misinterpretation forum'.


Then most posts in the Learning forum don't belong there...

Maybe. That means it's OK for you not to post factual stuff?


...
Will you listen to yourself? I understand this is the learning forum but a trivial post of fewer than one hundred eighty characters is nothing to get this worked up about. Consider, for one moment, how you could've handled this differently; you realize that you have now made that tiny post, which in your opinion doesn't even belong here, the main focus of this thread. And all because it never occurred to you to write something like, "No, I think that's wrong," rather than, "You don't know anything about socialism." Seriously. It's not like I don't have other fucking posts on this website; maybe you should take those into consideration before deciding I don't know what I'm talking about...

Maybe you should try to post sensibly in Learning, and keep the quips for other forums that are not specifically for people to try to get serious answers?

I didn't make this 'the focus of the thread'. You posted something that in 180 characters contained two errors, and I corrected you. That could have been the end of it. You decided that it wouldn't be. Why did you need to do that?




See above. There really isn't any kind of need for you to act like this much of a pretentious douchebag


That you didn't see why this comment was absurdly hypocritical before you posted makes me think you don't pay attention when you write.

Yeah, I know, correcting people in the Learning forum when they repeatetdly post erroneous information, then pointing out that the Learning forum isn't really the place for joke posts which could be considered spam, is really disruptive.

[Paul Cockshott]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Cockshott
"If this is a learning forum Blake, you must recognise that your contention about there being no wages in socialist economies is somewhat of a minority view hisyorically."
Most people believe that the word 'communism' refers to 'brutal state captalist dictatorship'. But I know it doesn't mean that. By the same token, you can believe that there will be wages in something that you can call 'socialism'. But that doesn't mean that it's socialism as Marx and Engels, for example, understood it.

What I mean is that your view of what socialism means has been a minority view in the socialist and communist movement. We dont have Marx or Engels available on this forum, so we can not ask them how they understand the meaning of the word socialism. There is dispute as to what they meant by socialism, or even whether they advocated socialism. The view that there are no wages in a socialist economy was a minority view not only in the socialist movement as a whole, but also among people who considered themselves, as you do, followers of Marx.

[Paul Cockshott]

True true on our side we have Karl Marx and on your side you have the Labour party, the Conservatives, the republicans and Democrats. Shit dude you've got the whole of capitalism on your side. Your opinion is certainly the most hysterically wide spread.

I am talking about opinion in the historical socialist and communist movements.

I am in favour of an economic programme that rapidly moves towards the abolition of money and its replacement by a system of labour accounts. I am quite open about saying that this has not been the policy of most of the socialist or communist movements historically. What I am pointing out though is that Blake's stance that there can be no money wages in a socialist economy was also not the policy of either the first second or third internationals, nor of the post WWII international communist movement. There were individuals and small tendencies within the second international that had this position - Stalin in 1906 being an example, and there have been small parties and groups like the Bordiguists or the SPGB in the post WWII period who have taken this position.
But in the learning forum I think we should acknowledge points which have historically been disputed, and not pretend that our own interpretations have general acceptance.

[ckaihatsu]

It is not a matter of deifying people. I agree with what Mao says about the need to struggle with an remould the outlook of the existing intelligensia. But in recognising that small capitalists or people with monopoly skills are likely to be less supportive of socialism than the working class is, I am just stating the obvious. The particular example of Doctors and winning their cooperation is based on historical experience. It was something that had to be dealt with when the NHS was set up in the UK in the 40s. Younger doctors identified with the new system of socialised medicine, but in order to overcome the opposition of the older doctors to the new system of free medicine Nye Bevan had as he said 'to stuff their mouths with gold'.

In the long run, when the medical schools have turned out sufficient new doctors you can move to a system where the hourly pay of doctors is just the same as any other trade, but so long as they have a relative monopoly they have a strong bargaining position.


The NHS is far from an appropriate example to use here since it's a public-sector institution *within* the sea of capitalist property relations.

Revolution is about moving to a mode of production that does away with the practice of stored abstract monetary valuations altogether -- there would be no need to 'bribe' the professional class if there's no disparity of wealth anymore, going forward.

[Камо́ Зэд]

Most people believe that the word 'communism' refers to 'brutal state captalist dictatorship'. But I know it doesn't mean that. By the same token, you can believe that there will be wages in something that you can call 'socialism'. But that doesn't mean that it's socialism as Marx and Engels, for example, understood it.

That isn't an argument of any kind. What is the precedent for the absolute non-existence of wages at any stage of communism?


This is the Learning form, it's not the 'conventional misinterpretation forum'.

The very second you join a political party of any kind, they're going to drop the word "party" out of the name.


Maybe. That means it's OK for you not to post factual stuff?

Absolutely. You've been doing nothing but that in this thread.


Maybe you should try to post sensibly in Learning, and keep the quips for other forums that are not specifically for people to try to get serious answers?

Let me just try to picture the worst-case scenario had my post gone unaddressed: somebody would be learning from a variety of different sources, then he sees my post and says to himself, "Yup, that's all there is to it. Everyone else can go fuck themselves." I'm surprised anyone that dumb could type a coherent sentence.


I didn't make this 'the focus of the thread'. You posted something that in 180 characters contained two errors, and I corrected you. That could have been the end of it. You decided that it wouldn't be. Why did you need to do that?

You didn't "correct" me. You decided I didn't know anything about the subject.


Yeah, I know, correcting people in the Learning forum when they repeatetdly post erroneous information, then pointing out that the Learning forum isn't really the place for joke posts which could be considered spam, is really disruptive.

It wouldn't take two seconds to get that stick out of your ass. Listen, if I start cracking jokes during a plenum or committee or something, feel free to get worked up. But the internet is srs bsnss.

[ckaihatsu]

[I] think we should acknowledge points which have historically been disputed, and not pretend that our own interpretations have general acceptance.


Here's the thing, though -- history is *over*. We are not *bound* by its particular past storyline, and today's trajectory is pointed towards the *future*.

Our 'interpretations' -- or, rather, our *conclusions* from the past, mixed in with our interpretation of present conditions -- are more crucial than you allow, since we can use them to make judgments about proper courses of thought and action for the *present*, moving forward.

I'll dive in and note, as is regular with this kind of thinking-out-loud, that a course of action -- whether a proletarian centralized mass administration would retain a formal wages system as a transitional measure -- is going to be determined largely by prevailing conditions *at that time*, and that it's pointless to split hairs over scholastic definitions (imo).

[Synergy]

I've heard that Evo Morales is moving Bolivia in a socialist direction. What has he done so far?

[Paul Cockshott]

The NHS is far from an appropriate example to use here since it's a public-sector institution *within* the sea of capitalist property relations.
That is true but there are certain common factors, in particular the likely initial opposition of what amounts to a class of small capitalists. Remember we are discussing the process by which capitalist property relations are transformed and superseded so you can not assume as your starting point that they have already been superseded.



Revolution is about moving to a mode of production that does away with the practice of stored abstract monetary valuations altogether -- there would be no need to 'bribe' the professional class if there's no disparity of wealth anymore, going forward.
I agree that after you have replaced money by time limited labour accounts and have moved to a system where each persons labour is credited at the same hour per hour rate, what you say would be true. But it is unlikely that this can be achieved overnight in a way analogous to the replacement of the Mark by the Euro.

Instead you are likely to have to move through a series of intermediate stages, for instance:

1. Outlawing the extraction of surplus value whilst the economy is still a monetary one.

2. Cancellation of all monetary balances above some modest limit and existing debts.

3. Converting Euro notes to ones denominated in time which still circulate.

4. Establishing a planning system in kind for the whole economy to allow the replacement of monetary calculation with in natura calculation.

5. Moving to a common hourly rate of pay for all trades and professions.

6. Making the labour accounts non-transferable between individuals.

Previous socialist systems have achieved steps 1 and 2 and partially achieved 4, but steps 3, and 6 needed to have something comparable to what Marx called the first phase of communism have not been done by any of them.

[ckaihatsu]

That is true but there are certain common factors, in particular the likely initial opposition of what amounts to a class of small capitalists. Remember we are discussing the process by which capitalist property relations are transformed and superseded so you can not assume as your starting point that they have already been superseded.


No one's "assuming" anything -- the point of opposition is to *overcome* it.

You're just as much making an assumption that capitalists would have to be *bribed* by retaining some aspect of capitalist property relations.





I agree that after you have replaced money by time limited labour accounts and have moved to a system where each persons labour is credited at the same hour per hour rate, what you say would be true. But it is unlikely that this can be achieved overnight in a way analogous to the replacement of the Mark by the Euro.

Instead you are likely to have to move through a series of intermediate stages, for instance:

[...]


I continue to maintain that your series of steps is far too prescriptive, in advance of actual conditions -- it is an abstraction, ready to be imposed regardless of how things actually play out.

Programmatically it suffers from adhering to abstracted valuations -- a capitulation at-the-ready regardless of the actual balance of political forces.

[Dave B]

I am quite open about saying that this has not been the policy of most of the socialist or communist movements historically. What I am pointing out though is that Blake's stance that there can be no money wages in a socialist economy was also not the policy of either the first second or third internationals, nor of the post WWII international communist movement.



There were individuals and small tendencies within the second international that had this position - Stalin in 1906 being an example, and there have been small parties and groups like the Bordiguists or the SPGB in the post WWII period who have taken this position.

But in the learning forum I think we should acknowledge points which have historically been disputed, and not pretend that our own interpretations have general acceptance. For example then the following was from Henry Hyndman in 1911, not exactly from the far left or SPGB either




The Record of an Adventurous Life Chapter XV Start of Social Democracy



“A much more serious objection to Kropotkin and other Anarchists is their wholly unscrupulous habit of reiterating statements that have been repeatedly proved to be incorrect, and even outrageous, by the men and women to whom they are attributed.

Time after time I have told Kropotkin, time after time has he read it in print, that Social-Democrats work for the complete overthrow of the wages system. He has admitted this to be so. But a month or so afterwards the same old oft-refuted misrepresentation appears in the same old authoritative fashion, as if no refutation of the calumny, that we wish to maintain wage-slavery, had ever been made.” http://www.marxists.org/archive/hyndman/1911/adventure/chap15.html




And from Kautsky


Karl Kautsky IV. THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE FUTURE 9. Division of Products in the Future State.


We can conceive a time when science shall have raised industry to such a high level if productivity that everything wanted by man will be produced in great abundance. In such a case, the formula, “To each according to his needs,” would be applied as a matter of course and without difficulty.

On the other hand, not even the profoundest conviction of the justice of this formula would be able to put it into practice if the productivity of labor remained so low that the proceeds of the most excessive toil could produce only the bare necessities……….. http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1892/erfurt/ch04a.htm

And even in 1924 when he had shifted to the reformist right, he could still say;


Kuatsky;Karl Kautsky The Labour Revolution
III. The Economic Revolution X. MONEY



Besides this rigid allocation of an equal measure of the necessaries and enjoyments of life to each individual, another form of Socialism without money is conceivable, the Leninite interpretation of what Marx described as the second phase of communism: each to produce of his own accord as much as he can, the productivity of labour being so high and the quantity and variety of products so immense that everyone may be trusted to take what he needs. For this purpose money would not be needed.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1924/labour/ch03_j.htm#sb












(http://www.marxists.org/archive/hyndman/1911/adventure/chap15.html)

[Dunk]

Socialism is a word I use to describe the relations of production I favor over our current relations, and communism is a word I use to describe the society I think socialism could enable to exist, ie a stateless and classless society.

[Paul Cockshott]

Kautsky definitely did not advocate the immediate abolition of money under socialism. Further on the same chapter ( The Erfurt Programme ) he writes:

A glance over the various forms of communist production from the primitive communism down to the latest communist societies will reveal how manifold are the forms of distribution that are applicable to a community of property in the instruments of production. All forms of modern wage-payment-fixed salaries, piece wages, time wages, bonuses – all of them are reconcilable with the spirit of a socialist society; and there is not one of them that may not play a role in socialist society, as the wants and customs of its members, together with the requirements of production, may demand.

In the second passage you cite, Kautsky is himself citing the Leninist idea of a moneyless communist phase that would follow the phase of socialism with money. In this he is saying no more than was Soviet orthodoxy. It is worth mentioning that the bulk of the chapter from which you obtain this one paragraph is a long polemic against Neuraths proposals for the immediate abolition of money.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Piece wages? Perhaps it's time the left should consider critiquing Trotsky's antipathy towards what he called "socialist piecework," particularly as applied to compensation in agriculture.

[Paul Cockshott]

Piecework is exploitative if carried out under circumstances of a competitive labour market as explained in vol I of Capital, because what occurs here is just the projection onto the averagely productive workers output of the average wage. But the average wage is less than the value added by labour. Kautsky evades this point because he rejects the possibility of direct labour value accounting. If you have direct labour value accounting as advocated in the Critique of the Gotha programme thenthe piecerate can be expressed at a level that for a worker of average productivity exactly corresponds to the value added by labour.

[Die Neue Zeit]

So how would you characterize the application of "socialist piecework" in the Soviet Union, given the contrast between Trotsky and Kautsky?

[Paul Cockshott]

Well in the USSR because of the maintainance of the wage form and the fact that these were substantially less in labour time units than the work done, the basic analysis that Marx had of the piece work wages applied to the USSR. Piece work there served to increase the social surplus product that was appropriated by the state. The idea that it was payment according to labour was partly true, in that it was payment in proportion to work done, but it was not payment in full proportion to work done.
If you have full payment by work done, then you need a secondary system of taxes on labour incomes - either a fixed number of hours per week, or a proportional income tax.
The Soviets forgot about Marx's idea that public services should be funded by income tax, but so of course do most left wing critics of the USSR who pay no attention to taxes at all.