Socialism vs. Communism [Archive]

Blake's Baby

5th December 2012, 13:05

History.

Before 1914, there were only 'socialist' (or 'social-democratic') parties. We were all socialists. Lenin was a socialist, Trotsky was a socialist, Luxemburg was a socialist. Some revolutionary parties from this period, such as the Socialist Labor Party in the US, and the Socialist Party of Great Britain, still call themselves 'socialist'.

The majority of socialist parties betrayed the working class in 1914, by signing up to their local bourgeoisies' war efforts in WWI, and the 2nd or Socialist International fell apart. The revolutionary minorites mostly (but not always) then joined the new 3rd or Communist International, and mostly became 'communists'. After the war, the surviving majorities of the Socialist Parties re-formed the 2nd International.

Since then, especially after the Trotskyists were expelled from the 3rd International in the 1930s, there have been a bunch more 'socialist' parties ('socialist workers party' etc).

So what a party is called basically depends on when it was formed, rather than its programme. Parties formed before 1914 tend to be called 'socialist', whether they're revolutionary parties or reformist parties; parties formed from 1918-1940 tend to be called 'communist'; parties formed after 1945 might be called 'socialist' if they're reformist (2nd Int) parties like the PSF (French Socialist Party, actually formed in 1969), or if they're Trotskyist parties, but might be called 'communist' if they're Stalinist parties.

Very, very roughly.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

5th December 2012, 13:16

It really depends on who's using the terms and in what contexts.

Soomie

5th December 2012, 17:48

Where did the idea that the main separating factor between the two is that Socialism is a transitional phase and still has a monetary system come from? Is that only what is considered "modern european socialism"?

Blake's Baby

5th December 2012, 17:57

Most 'socialist' parties are reformist. They believe capitalism can be transformed into something better.

Leninists think that the same 'phase' can be imposed, so they call it socialism too.

Revolutionaries who aren't Leninists don't see the distinction. If it still has money, it's still capitalism, basically, and therefore not 'socialism'.

prolcon

5th December 2012, 20:37

Revolutionaries who aren't Leninists don't see the distinction. If it still has money, it's still capitalism, basically, and therefore not 'socialism'.

I want to talk about this. Making a clear, black-and-white distinction between capitalism and the endeavor to end capitalism doesn't strike me as any kind of useful. While capitalism can't be "reformed" into a more just system, a revolutionary transition isn't a clean one. You can't expect to go to bed one night under capitalism and wake up to a communist morning. I can understand, though, if you're saying that the trick is to watch out for those who declare socialism "complete" or something while elements of the old capitalist order persist. I wonder if it would be more helpful to the socialist endeavor to regard socialism as the struggle to eliminate every last vestige of capitalism and class, rather than as a destination with a checklist of characteristics to go down to make sure you're really there.

Blake's Baby

5th December 2012, 21:15

Until classes are abolished, they exist. Until property is abolished, it exists. Until capitalism is abolished, it exists.

While they exist, 'socialism', as the description of a society, does not exist. The 'socialist movement' exists, or to put it in a way that makes its name less ambiguous you could call it 'the movement for socialism', but to declare that this means there is no black-and-white distinction is to mistake the movement for the goal.

You may as well say 'I've eaten dinner' just because you've realised you're hungry. You really haven't. You may even think you're on your way to the restaurant to eat pizza, you may even be sitting down looking at a menu, but until you've actually eaten it you're still hungry.

You can't expect to go to bed one night empty and wake up the next morning full of pizza. Does this mean eating pizza is impossible? Does it mean that thinking about pizza must be the same as having pizza? Does having one bite of pizza constitute having all the pizza you can have?

No, it means eating is a process. And the revolutionary transformation of society is a process. Both have a starting point, and an end point. Until you've eaten dinner - a process that, like most processes, starts before it ends - you haven't eaten dinner. Starting is not the same as finishing. Wanting to start is not the same as finishing. Why do you think it is?

cantwealljustgetalong

6th December 2012, 02:42

I asked this question myself and had a very productive conversation:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/lenins-definition-socialism-t174790/index.html?t=174790

while Marx and Engels used the terms interchangeably, Lenin outlined a three stage theory that goes: dictatorship of the proletariat (revolutionary transitional regime) --> proletarian democratic republic (initial stage of communism) --> socialism (final stage of communism) (State and Revolution, ch.5 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm)).

the dictatorship of the proletariat is installed to suppress capitalist restoration and counter-revolutionary forces. once this is accomplished, a constitution will be enacted for a proletarian democratic republic (initial stage), set up to encourage workers' independence from the state and to make itself obsolete. once the state fades away, we arrive at the the international federal commune of traditional Marxian socialism (final stage).

Lenin references the common tendency to call the proletarian democratic republic "socialism"; Stalin, in particular, picks up on this and runs with it. "socialism in one country" indeed.

prolcon

6th December 2012, 04:10

Le Socialiste

6th December 2012, 07:53

Marxaveli

6th December 2012, 08:55

^^Yea I see that a lot. People thinking countries like Sweden are socialist. And of course living in the US, much of the far right considers Obama and the Democrats to be socialist :laugh:

Nevertheless, I think communism is a scarier word to most people than socialism is, for the reasons Le Socialiste stated above. I tend to refer to myself as a communist though, since socialism tends to be a more ambiguous term.

Blake's Baby

6th December 2012, 10:19

I'm not really sure I get your meaning, and I think that mostly has to do with your choice of metaphor. Unless we're looking at non-Marxian methods of revolutionary proletarian socialism, there is a clear difference between bourgeois hegemony and proletarian political power. At the same time, elements of capitalism persist into the lower phase; the post-bourgeois society still bears the "birthmarks" of the old society...

Fundamental mistake right there. Elements of 'capitalism' do not persist into the new society. The new society is marked by the old to be sure but this is not the continuation of capitalism but the result of the process of capitalist development. The new society is traumatised by the old, we will still be scarred by capitalism - psychologically, technologically, environmentally - but we won't be prolonging capitalism into the 'new society'.

...
It's useful to acknowledge what elements of capitalism persist into the struggle to eliminate the last vestiges of the old order, but what good does it do to paint with such broad strokes across the board? What does it accomplish to call capitalist the process of removing capitalist elements?...

Capitalism cannot be abolished in one place. If it could, you could declare your house a socialist republic. Capitalism must be abolished by the world working class. To abolish it it must control it, because without controlling it it cannot do anything with it. The working class must seize control of society, politically and economically, and consciously abolish the relations of production.

I almost feel like we're arguing semantics, but what I'm getting at is that I see similar arguments used to more or less dismiss gains made by socialistic movements throughout the world, simply because they have yet to overthrow the global bourgeoisie. I just feel like this attitude of there being a pure, true linear path to the abolition of all elements of the capitalist order is building unrealistic expectations for the future of our movement...

It depends what you think 'the future of our movement' is. If you think it is the administration of state capitalism, then it's not 'our' movement at all, it's your movement, with the rest of the bourgeoisie. If it's the abolition of capitalism and the state, then how is that to be accomplished in one place, given that capitalism and the state are global phenomena?

...Like I said before, it's helpful to consider what elements of class and capitalism persist following the end of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, but to dismiss efforts made to eliminate these elements as occurring within the capitalist system is inaccurate, even if, owing to the persistence of world capitalism, the socialist endeavor begins to gravitate toward restoration of bourgeois power...

After the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is the dictatorship of the proletariat. As the proletariat is a class, it exists inside a class sytem. As socialism is not a class system, the existence of classes means that socialism has not been acheived. As there is not 'stage' between capitalism and socialism, then if not socialism then capitalism - capitalism, managed by the proletariat which has not yet managed to overthrow capitalism.

...The seizure of power is rapid and revolutionary indeed, but one isn't going to go to bed the night the bourgeoisie is overthrown and wake up to a world without money or state. The transition is relatively rapid, but it still demands time and work. I just feel like painting the world in absolutes only serves to shut down discussion about how a socialist world is to be achieved.

The transition might take a very long time. Until it is complete, until capitalism has been suppressed, capitalism survives.

To return to the pizza analogy - eating is like the revolutionary transformation. We may be hungry, but unfed, so we go to a pizza parlour, and order a pizza. This is the current situation, of agitation for socialism. We may then begin eating a pizza. This is the revolution. When we have eaten the pizza to pur satisfaction, then we have been fed. This is the post-revolutionary society. Until we have eaten the pizza, we are not fed. Until we have overthrown capitalism, we do not have socialism. What's the problem?

Green Girl

6th December 2012, 10:58

My understanding of the difference between the two is that Socialism is considered the transitional phase between Capitalism and Communism, and is in fact a lower stage of Communism. It comes after the revolution of the proletariat and stands as the dictatorship of the proletariat. Under Socialism the workers have more control of the means of production. There is still a government and a monetary system, but certain things such as healthcare, housing, food, and water should be provided (ideally). Communism is the final process in which a classless, stateless, money-less society is achieved, and everyone is provided for according to his or her need.

I know that Marx desired for them to be interchangeable, but I feel with so many categories and subcategories of political and economic systems that exist today that there requires a difference to be established. I see some people call themselves socialist, and they're modeling their views off of certain programs in Europe, which I don't believe are socialist at all. These same people become fearful when you try to discuss communism with them.

So, do I pretty much have the defining characteristics between the two down?

That is also my limited understanding as well. Socialism shifts control of the means of production from private to the workers. Socialism guarantees economic rights such as health care, employment, housing, utilities, etc. However it leaves the monetary system in tact. Socialism is “From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds", thus we have unequal pay, those with more valuable skills will be paid more.

However the next stage is the ultimate destination Communism: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs and wants” This is where everyone becomes equal and allows money to be done away with as everyone's work is needed and appreciated by society and at this stage there is such an abundance of everything that every citizen can have anything they desire. This is why some have said that this would also benefit the rich capitalists as they can still enjoy the finest things in life without worrying about other capitalists destroying them financially. Real Communism, which by the way has never existed would be a great benefit to everyone. The garbage collector would have the same chance for as fine a life as a famous movie star. This would be utopia.

Also I hate the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" I wished Marx would have called it "democracy of the proletariat" which is the same thing as bourgeois would not have a voice either way. And "democracy of the proletariat" would be a much easier sell to the working class of capitalists societies.

Blake's Baby

6th December 2012, 12:18

... Socialism is “From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds", thus we have unequal pay, those with more valuable skills will be paid more...

Where do you get this idea from, if you don't mind me asking? Is it from Marx? Because if it is, I think you're misunderstanding what he was saying.

The slogan “From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds" is a 'socialist' slogan because it was used by the utopian socialists in the mid-19th century, not because it refers to a period in the future called 'socialism'.

Paul Cockshott

7th December 2012, 23:33

Marx and Engels used the terms socialism and communism interchangeably when referring to the future society and mode of production. The lower phase of communism is not synonymous with the dictatorship of the proletariat; while the former is a classless (and therefore stateless) society in which resources and produce are distributed according to individual contribution, the latter is the "political transition" corresponding to the "revolutionary transformation" of capitalism into communism (Marx).

I dont know where on earth this particular left social democrat Canard comes from. Marx consistently called himself a communist not a socialist. I really can not think of any text by Marx where he identifies socialism and communism. He labels many of his theoretical enemies as socialists, but did not identify with or advocate socialism himself.

He uses the term communism sometimes to mean a political movement,sometimes to mean a process of development that will transform the existing order
"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."

Insofar as he talks about future having any economic form it is
usually in terms of an economy based on communally organised production
in which some form of labour token distribution would prevail. But he is
cautious about this indicating that it may be different. He also uses other
terms at times to describe this like 'a community of free individuals'

"Let us now picture to ourselves, by way of change, a community of free individuals, carrying on their work with the means of production in common, in which the labour power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour power of the community. All the characteristics of Robinson’s labour are here repeated, but with this difference, that they are social, instead of individual. Everything produced by him was exclusively the result of his own personal labour, and therefore simply an object of use for himself. The total product of our community is a social product. One portion serves as fresh means of production and remains social. But another portion is consumed by the members as means of subsistence. A distribution of this portion amongst them is consequently necessary. The mode of this distribution will vary with the productive organisation of the community, and the degree of historical development attained by the producers. We will assume, but merely for the sake of a parallel with the production of commodities, that the share of each individual producer in the means of subsistence is determined by his labour time. Labour time would, in that case, play a double part. Its apportionment in accordance with a definite social plan maintains the proper proportion between the different kinds of work to be done and the various wants of the community. On the other hand, it also serves as a measure of the portion of the common labour borne by each individual, and of his share in the part of the total product destined for individual consumption. The social relations of the individual producers, with regard both to their labour and to its products, are in this case perfectly simple and intelligible, and that with regard not only to production but also to distribution. "(Capital I)

He says that a communistic society would have a much more extensive use of machinery "Hence in a communistic society there would be a very different scope for the employment of machinery than there can be in a bourgeois society."(Capital I)

It would be one in which economic calculation is done explicitly in terms of labour time:
"If we conceive society as being not capitalistic but communistic, there will be no money-capital at all in the first place, not the disguises cloaking the transactions arising on account of it. The question then comes down to the need of society to calculate beforehand how much labour, means of production, and means of subsistence it can invest, without detriment, in such lines of business as for instance the building of railways, which do not furnish any means of production or subsistence, nor produce any useful effect for a long time, a year or more, while they extract labour, means of production and means of subsistence from the total annual production."(Capital II)

He also uses the word communist to describe societies like primitive tribes or the Inca society of Peru. "The only correct aspect of this conception is: Assuming some form of social production to exist (e.g.,
primitive Indian communities, or the more ingeniously developed communism of the Peruvians), a distinction can always be made between that portion of labour whose product is directly consumed individually by the producers and their families and -- aside from the part which is productively consumed -- that portion of labour which is invariably surplus-labour, whose product serves constantly to satisfy the general social needs no matter how this surplus-product may be divided, and no matter who may function as representative of these social needs." (Capital III)

I think the identification of socialism with communism derives from German social democracy which arose as a socialist movement after the crushing of communism in Germany, but which in the late 19th century took on board some of Marx's ideas and sought to identify its own socialist tradition with the earlier communist tradition to which Marx belonged. Russian Social Democracy shared this idea that the social democratic and communist traditions and ideas were essentially the same thing, but after the revolution when it became more radical it sought to identify with the old communist tradition and renamed itself as a communist movement. Lenin then invented the idea that socialism and communism were two disctinct historical phases, and this idea was further devloped by Khruschov, and through Khruschov's publicising the goal of the USSR aiming to achieve a communist society by the 1980s, this idea of there being two stages got wider currency.

Khruschov also promulgated the frankly utopian idea that communism was to be a society of unrestricted abundance in which everything would be distributed freely. I can find no support in the original literature by Marx for the idea of socialist and communist societies forming a distinct historical sequence.

However the fact that Marx neither advocated socialism nor saw it as predecessor to communism, does not mean that socialist society - as understood by the mainstream theorists of social democracy like Kautsky
and Lenin, might not actually turn out to be a historical stage leading to
the sort of direct labour time calculating society that Marx talked about.

So far socialism has never developed into communism but that does not mean
that it never could. For my part I think that in many developed economies
socialism may be an unnecessary stage.

Paul Cockshott

7th December 2012, 23:41

The two are interchangeable, insofar as one doesn't necessarily differentiate itself from the other. They are, for all intents and purposes, defined similarly. Socialism doesn't refer to a 'lower phase' of communism, or a transitional one at that.

As for those who refer to themselves as 'socialists' while holding views that are decidedly not socialist, they either aren't well enough acquainted with what socialism actually means, or they're hiding behind the label of socialism to give their views or policies a 'friendlier' veneer.

Edit - I forgot to mention (if it hasn't been already) that there exists today the idea that socialism equates to European-style social democracy, whereas communism manifested itself in the forms of such governments as the USSR, China, and the Eastern bloc. That may be where the confusion comes from for some people who mistakenly adhere to these definitions.

These are not confusions but reflections of the real history of the socialist movement and the subsequent communist movement. European style social democracy was the real historical continuer of the socialist movement. Until these parties eventually repudiated socialism as a goal, they were the socialist movement. The Communist Parties, called themselves Communist, but did not radically distance themselves from socialism in economic policy. There was a continuum between the policies of social democratic and communist parties.

Paul Cockshott

7th December 2012, 23:45

Labour vouchers are probably the worst idea Marx committed to writing, is my take on it. There's a 12-page argument substantially between me and Cockshott somewhere (I think it's called something like 'will value exist in socialism?') from about a year ago, where I argue that 'value' as in labour-time accounting will not exist in socialism.

This is probably right. The idea of labour time accounting was one key component of Marxian communism that the socialists never accepted.

prolcon

8th December 2012, 00:00

Fundamental mistake right there. Elements of 'capitalism' do not persist into the new society. The new society is marked by the old to be sure but this is not the continuation of capitalism but the result of the process of capitalist development. The new society is traumatised by the old, we will still be scarred by capitalism - psychologically, technologically, environmentally - but we won't be prolonging capitalism into the 'new society'.

What are you trying to do, here? The new society bears the birthmarks of the old in more ways than that it is merely left in the same geographical space as capitalism, that it has the same kinds of televisions and that certain individual prejudices persist. Do you honestly believe that capitalism collapses into a society its polar opposite in every respect? Socialism will be a new species of human civilization, but it will bear the clear evolutionary marks of its ancestors. Some elements of capitalist society absolutely will persist into the period of time during which, bourgeois political hegemony disrupted, people will endeavor to create a more just society and will struggle against that which persists of the old society. Socialism is revolutionary in its redefining productive relations in society, but the practical work of making that a reality is more than just snapping our fingers and saying, "Okay, we're socialist now."

Capitalism cannot be abolished in one place. If it could, you could declare your house a socialist republic. Capitalism must be abolished by the world working class. To abolish it it must control it, because without controlling it it cannot do anything with it. The working class must seize control of society, politically and economically, and consciously abolish the relations of production.

Capitalism is a global system, so it stands to reason its defeat must occur on a global scale. We agree on this point, but the way it's written makes me think it was meant as a critical response to something I'd said.

It depends what you think 'the future of our movement' is. If you think it is the administration of state capitalism, then it's not 'our' movement at all, it's your movement, with the rest of the bourgeoisie. If it's the abolition of capitalism and the state, then how is that to be accomplished in one place, given that capitalism and the state are global phenomena?

The abolition of capitalism occurs globally, but the overthrow of bourgeois political hegemony will not be accomplished in one blow. The world is not a single centralized state (although we're getting there). Would have the imperialist powers of the world create a single state of it all before you give the proletariat permission to seize power? I very much doubt that's your position. Also, do you know what actually defines the bourgeoisie? Because assigning me to that class would become an even weirder, pettier decision if it turned out that you do.

After the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is the dictatorship of the proletariat. As the proletariat is a class, it exists inside a class sytem. As socialism is not a class system, the existence of classes means that socialism has not been acheived. As there is not 'stage' between capitalism and socialism, then if not socialism then capitalism - capitalism, managed by the proletariat which has not yet managed to overthrow capitalism.

Vestiges of class and capitalism persist in the struggle to eliminate them. This is very clear. We disagree, though, on what could potentially persist into this endeavor. You've decided that the birthmarks of the old society could absolutely never take the form of any remnants of class inequality. Now, if you're going to say something along the lines of socialism definable only as the stage of human society in which there is absolutely no vestige of capitalism left whatsoever, in any way, shape, or form, then we're arguing semantics. And if you've seriously suckered me into an argument over definitions, then fuck you and fuck your cat.

The transition might take a very long time. Until it is complete, until capitalism has been suppressed, capitalism survives.

And this is where we agree, although where we disagree is how we approach the actual endeavor to eliminate capitalism. See, I don't look at historical socialist attempts and dismiss their clear diversion from the ideal socialist path as "capitalist" in intent or broad effect. I really don't see how dismissing all revolutionary attempts out of hand has ever helped our movement. It seems we were all a little stronger when we had revolutions to believe in.

To return to the pizza analogy - eating is like the revolutionary transformation. We may be hungry, but unfed, so we go to a pizza parlour, and order a pizza. This is the current situation, of agitation for socialism. We may then begin eating a pizza. This is the revolution. When we have eaten the pizza to pur satisfaction, then we have been fed. This is the post-revolutionary society. Until we have eaten the pizza, we are not fed. Until we have overthrown capitalism, we do not have socialism. What's the problem?

This analogy sucks, and here's why: there isn't a fine line between "hungry" and "fed." There's a broad spectrum of human feelings that relate to our need for sustenance. I can be fed, but still hungry. I can be not hungry without having been fed or having eaten. This idea that there is a fine line between species is patently idealist; absolutely nothing in the universe conforms to this method of magical transmutation. It is true that species often experience "explosions" and "leaps" in evolutionary development, "revolutions." But all life is a continuum, and species are fairly arbitrary. Marxism isn't about achieving a checklist of social attributes, like some simple video game. It's about knowing how society moves and being a part of its movement forward.

Again, though, I feel like we're arguing semantics. If we define socialism as the stage of human social development in which class and property do not exist, then, no, the struggle to eliminate class and property does not take place during this stage. But if that's seriously what this conversation was about, and I've wasted my time debating the finer points of denotation, I'll be forced to just end someone.

Blake's Baby

8th December 2012, 01:05

What are you trying to do, here? The new society bears the birthmarks of the old in more ways than that it is merely left in the same geographical space as capitalism, that it has the same kinds of televisions and that certain individual prejudices persist. Do you honestly believe that capitalism collapses into a society its polar opposite in every respect?

Yes, and I would argue that if you don't, you're not a socialist/communist.

...Socialism will be a new species of human civilization, but it will bear the clear evolutionary marks of its ancestors. Some elements of capitalist society absolutely will persist into the period of time during which, bourgeois political hegemony disrupted, people will endeavor to create a more just society and will struggle against that which persists of the old society...

You said elements of 'capitalism', not elements of 'capitalist society' before. 'Capitalist society' is much wider than 'capitalism'. I agree that elements of 'capitalist society', the society that has been created while we are producing in a capitalist economy, will survive. But not elements of 'capitalism', which is a class system based on particular property-forms which is distinguished by the use of wage-labour for the production of commodities. Wage labour - gone. Commodity production - gone. Property laws - gone. Class system - gone. Ipods and penicillin, the railway network and the rules of Rugby League? Yeah, I think we'd still have them.

...Socialism is revolutionary in its redefining productive relations in society, but the practical work of making that a reality is more than just snapping our fingers and saying, "Okay, we're socialist now."...

Oh, you reckon? At least I think snapping my fingers is necessary, you don't seem to think there's anything involved at all. 'Oh, let's have wages and property and classes and states, and we'll call it socialism but it'll be just the same as capitalism'. Well, fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

...
Capitalism is a global system, so it stands to reason its defeat must occur on a global scale. We agree on this point, but the way it's written makes me think it was meant as a critical response to something I'd said.

The abolition of capitalism occurs globally, but the overthrow of bourgeois political hegemony will not be accomplished in one blow. The world is not a single centralized state (although we're getting there). Would have the imperialist powers of the world create a single state of it all before you give the proletariat permission to seize power? I very much doubt that's your position. Also, do you know what actually defines the bourgeoisie? Because assigning me to that class would become an even weirder, pettier decision if it turned out that you do...

Engels was a bourgeois. He came over to the revolutionary proletariat, he politically supported the working class in its struggles. Likewise, for a worker to go over to the bourgeoisie, all you have to do is support bourgeois reaction in its struggles with the working class. Not that there isn't a way back - anyone can support the proletarian revolution. But if you support the bourgeoisie then you are politically bourgeois, even if you've never owned a factory in your life.

...
Vestiges of class and capitalism persist in the struggle to eliminate them. This is very clear. We disagree, though, on what could potentially persist into this endeavor. You've decided that the birthmarks of the old society could absolutely never take the form of any remnants of class inequality. Now, if you're going to say something along the lines of socialism definable only as the stage of human society in which there is absolutely no vestige of capitalism left whatsoever, in any way, shape, or form, then we're arguing semantics. And if you've seriously suckered me into an argument over definitions, then fuck you and fuck your cat...

The 'new society' by definition doesn't include classes and property. Ergo, if it includes property and classes, it is not socialism, it is capitalism, so if you don't want to have that argument, fine.

...
And this is where we agree, although where we disagree is how we approach the actual endeavor to eliminate capitalism. See, I don't look at historical socialist attempts and dismiss their clear diversion from the ideal socialist path as "capitalist" in intent or broad effect...

More fool you. If I don't intend to electrocute a bath full of nuns, but I do it anyway, does my intention matter? the nuns are still dead. But, I didn't mean it, so it's OK they're alive, is that what you're saying? 'Intent' doesn't matter to fuck. I care much less about what Lenin 'intended' than in what happened. If they produced capitalism (as every 'revolution' up to now has) then their effect is capitalist, because that is what 'effect' means. I'd rather know why they failed (which might just stop us making the same mistakes) rather than saying 'hey Lenin was cool, let's do it all again, because everything worked so well last time lalalalala I can't hear you...'

... I really don't see how dismissing all revolutionary attempts out of hand has ever helped our movement. It seems we were all a little stronger when we had revolutions to believe in...

1-I agree - show me someone who dismisses 'all revolutionary attempts out of hand' and I'll happily take them to task. Likewise I will take to task anyone who eulogises any revolutionary attempt uncritically. Both are idiots who need to learn rather spout shit.
2-so what? The Catholic Church (which believes a lot of garbage) is stronger than the workers' movement, should we deliberately cultivate lies because they make us strong? As we're not living in a communist society, we have no successes to learn from. So, we can learn from failures, or we can refuse to learn from failures. Which would you prefer?

...
This analogy sucks, and here's why: there isn't a fine line between "hungry" and "fed." There's a broad spectrum of human feelings that relate to our need for sustenance. I can be fed, but still hungry...

The analogy is awesome, sadly, you don't understand it so it doesn't serve its purpose. It may not be precise enough, but all anaolgies have a breaking point.

When I say 'fed' here, I mean, fed sufficiently, satisfied, ie not hungry. You cannot be both 'hungry' and 'not hungry'. The two states are mutually exclusive.

... I can be not hungry without having been fed or having eaten. This idea that there is a fine line between species is patently idealist; absolutely nothing in the universe conforms to this method of magical transmutation. It is true that species often experience "explosions" and "leaps" in evolutionary development, "revolutions." But all life is a continuum, and species are fairly arbitrary. Marxism isn't about achieving a checklist of social attributes, like some simple video game. It's about knowing how society moves and being a part of its movement forward.

Again, though, I feel like we're arguing semantics. If we define socialism as the stage of human social development in which class and property do not exist, then, no, the struggle to eliminate class and property does not take place during this stage. But if that's seriously what this conversation was about, and I've wasted my time debating the finer points of denotation, I'll be forced to just end someone.

Maybe you have. Not my fault if you define 'socialism' as the same as 'capitalism'. It isn't. They are mutually exclusive modes of existence.

prolcon

8th December 2012, 01:09

Yes, and I would argue that if you don't, you're not a socialist/communist.

So unless I believe that in a flash instant capitalism is transmogrified into socialism, then I don't advocate the abolition of capitalism and its being supplanted by socialism?

You said elements of 'capitalism', not 'capitalist society' before. 'Capitalist society' is much wider than 'capitalism'..

So you were wasting my time by baiting me into a semantic argument.

I'm not going to even bother responding to the rest of your petty, bilious post. You're deliberately misrepresenting everything I stand for just for the sake of starting a fight, and I'm not going to be your sucker.

Blake's Baby

8th December 2012, 01:15

So unless I believe that in a flash instant capitalism is transmogrified into socialism, then I don't advocate the abolition of capitalism and its being supplanted by socialism?...

If you think that being 'dead' and being 'alive' are the same thing, I can't help you.

...
So you were wasting my time by baiting me into a semantic argument...

'baiting'? a semantic argument? No. An argument in which we are using the same words for different things, sure. Not my fault if you think socialism is the same as capitalism, or if you get hot under the collar if you're told it's not.

...I'm not going to even bother responding to the rest of your petty, bilious post. You're deliberately misrepresenting everything I stand for just for the sake of starting a fight, and I'm not going to be your sucker.

No, really I'm not, just taking the words you've put down and interpreting them as best I can. If you're really unclear about what you mean, that isn't my fault. Sure, it's my problem, cause now I've got to wipe your shit off my shoes, but I wasn't the one who took a dump on the pavement.

prolcon

8th December 2012, 01:20

If you think that being 'dead' and being 'alive' are the same thing, I can't help you.

What an objective, nuanced analysis.

Your entire posts are more or less that sentence up there. You're not really making any arguments, and this is our last contact until you straighten up.

Yuppie Grinder

8th December 2012, 01:41

I'm beginning to seriously doubt the two-phase understanding of socialism.

Blake's Baby

8th December 2012, 01:50

What parts of the scheme do you doubt, Pez? Or, if it's easier to explain, how do you see the process of capitalism >>> ????? >>> communism going?

Yuppie Grinder

8th December 2012, 01:56

Well I think that labor vouchers are a viable idea under the DotP, but for reasons you and Ostriniki have already pointed out, I don't see them as genuinely socialistic. And besides that, if we receive according to our contribution what happens to the sick, the elderly, and the unable?
I'm just speculating and shooting the shit here, but I guess Captialism>DotP>Socialism/Communism with the last bit being essentially the same thing?
If I don't really get what you're getting at correct me.

Blake's Baby

8th December 2012, 02:18

I think there will have to be rationing of some things at the beginning of 'socialism/communism', and I think this is what Marx was referring to with the 'lower-higher' distinction. So my periodisation would be Capitalism (dictatorship of bourgeoisie) >1> Capitalism (dictatorship of proletariat) >2> Communism (lower stage, with some rationing still) >3> Communism (higher stage, free access)

In this schema, >1> is a political revolution to seize the state and the economy; >2> is the transformation of the economy from a commodity economy to an economy based on provision of need and >3> would be a technological and social transformation to enable production to fulfill all human needs and wants. To an extent, the three transformative stages would be consecutive or even concurrent. It seems obvious to me for instance that if the bourgeoisie was defeated quickly the DotP would be very short. I don't think it's likely but it's certainly an implication of that conception of development. Likewise, the 'lower' phase of communism could be very short if we manage to avoid a prolonged world civil war that will destroy productive potential.

Even when Marx was talking about labour vouchers by the way, he was assuming that they were 'taxed' in some way by some proportion in order to provide necessities for non-working dependents.

Paul Cockshott

8th December 2012, 12:36

The 'new society' by definition doesn't include classes and property. Ergo, if it includes property and classes, it is not socialism, it is capitalism, so if you don't want to have that argument, fine.
Does the idealism of this not strike you?

Paul Cockshott

8th December 2012, 12:39

Well I think that labor vouchers are a viable idea under the DotP, but for reasons you and Ostriniki have already pointed out, I don't see them as genuinely socialistic. And besides that, if we receive according to our contribution what happens to the sick, the elderly, and the unable?
You are right they are not socialistic, they are communistic. Marx suggests that the sick etc would be funded out of income tax/ social insurance contributions on the labour vouchers

Blake's Baby

8th December 2012, 13:25

Does the idealism of this not strike you?

Do you think the distinction between alive and dead is idealistic as well?

There's nothing idealistic about distinguishing between different mutually-exclusive states of existing.

prolcon

8th December 2012, 19:46

The idealism lies in applying the logic of alive-dead to what is closer to speciation. There are clear biological distinctions between species, but their transitions are more subtle. Idealism is taking a broad-ass, vague concept, like the dichotomy of life and death, and applying it across the board to situations that don't really work under it.

Rafiq

8th December 2012, 20:40

Blake's Baby

8th December 2012, 21:00

The idealism lies in applying the logic of alive-dead to what is closer to speciation...

It really isn't idealism. It's looking at material characteristics. What are the property relations of different social systems?

It isn't closer to speciation, there's no grey area between capitalism and socialism. Capitalism is a specific form of economy that is based on particular property laws, commodity production and wage labour. Socialism isn't, in fact it's the negation of that. As something cannot be both itself and its opposite, then the distinction between them is... distinct.

... There are clear biological distinctions between species, but their transitions are more subtle. Idealism is taking a broad-ass, vague concept, like the dichotomy of life and death, and applying it across the board to situations that don't really work under it.

If I was applying it to lions and tigers, I'd agree with you.

As capitalism and socialism are not like lions and tigers, more like lions and fridges, I think drawing hard distinctions between them is not only permissable but necessary, and I also think anyone who doesn't is a fool who can't tell the difference between a lion and a fridge.

Capitalism has existed since the Neolithic revolution, Blake?

You are making a statement there, Rafiq?

I don't think it has, in fact I would find that viewpoint to be ridiculous.

I think there are elements of the economy of Antique Slavery that one could call capitalist - there was a certain amount of wage labour, there was a certain amount of commodity production - but 'capitalism' is a system, which has existed locally since about the 1500s, and globally for around 100 years. Why?

Rafiq

8th December 2012, 21:41

"If property and classes exist, it is capitalism"

Geiseric

8th December 2012, 22:06

"If property and classes exist, it is capitalism"

I think that's a good way of putting it, private property is very specific.

Blake's Baby

8th December 2012, 22:16

"If property and classes exist, it is capitalism"

Right.

In the context of future society, which is what we were talking about, if property and classes exist, it's capitalism.

Not all property, not all classes. But I'm a Marxist, I think that Marx was right that communism will follow capitalism; I don't think that capitalism and communism will exist simultaneously, so if capitalism persists, it isn't communism.

Paul Cockshott

8th December 2012, 22:33

Do you think the distinction between alive and dead is idealistic as well?

There's nothing idealistic about distinguishing between different mutually-exclusive states of existing.

The point is that you are trying to deduce attributes of a social formation from a definition. Definitions apply to ideas or concepts, unless you are a Hegelian or some other form of idealist you can not assume that social formations are the realisation of a concept of an ideal. You can not predict the future by definition. It would only be possible to do that if the historical process was the realisation of the self development of an idea.

That this is your basic thought pattern is shown by a later post :"Capitalism is a specific form of economy that is based on particular property laws, commodity production and wage labour. Socialism isn't, in fact it's the negation of that. As something cannot be both itself and its opposite, then the distinction between them is... distinct."

You treat one form of society as being 'the negation' of another. This is pure Hegelianism. Negation is a term applicable in logic it could only be applied to social formations if these developed according to the Hegelian system of dialectical logic.

Rafiq

8th December 2012, 23:30

Right.

In the context of future society, which is what we were talking about, if property and classes exist, it's capitalism.

Not all property, not all classes. But I'm a Marxist, I think that Marx was right that communism will follow capitalism; I don't think that capitalism and communism will exist simultaneously, so if capitalism persists, it isn't communism.

I think it's quite ridiculous for Communism and Capitalism to be compared. Here I diverge a bit from Marx (while properly retaining his legacy). I don't think communism is a mode of production in itself. I don't think it's possible for us to predict the exact nature of a mode of production at that. It would make sense, for example, for Liberalism and Communism to be compared, but capitalism is a dynamic mode of production which embodies several complex social relations to the means of production and all that come about from it (which we call a mode of production). Communism on the other hand is an ideology, and Marx's predictions for what may follow capitalism were very vague estimations which were indeed to an extent constrained by the existent condition of capitalism in the 19th century (where a proletarian revolution seemed more imminent).

Now, on to my point: An entirely new mode of production cannot be estabilished over night. Capitalism is a very dynamic process which after a proletarian revolution will not immediatly be done away with. And that's just concerning the base.

Yuppie Grinder

8th December 2012, 23:33

Rafiq

8th December 2012, 23:44

Communism as ideology, as a dogma, a new womb to have faith in and find safety, an alter to sacrifice on in exchange for empty promises of justice, is useless in the struggle for emancipation and actually harmful.
Communism is a material reality or it is nothing.

I don't entirely understand what you're trying to get at here. You try to attack the notion that Communism is an ideology by simply utilizing ideological rhetoric, in your own criticism of Communism as an ideology you do nothing but reaffirm the fact that communism is ideological. An Ideology and a Dogma are not interchangeable. An ideology and an article of faith are not interchangeable. Saying communism is an ideology can not, and does not at all signify it is a moralist "promise" (really prez? As if you could stoop any lower). Communism can be a material reality if we categorize communism as the proletarian struggle to destroy it's class enemy, a process which is a direct reflection of conditions existent within capitalist social relations. Indeed. But for you call some abstract, future utopia a "material reality" sais a lot about not only your limited understanding of historical materialism, but your own ideological pressuposions (Utopian Socialism). It was you yourself who said in another thread that attempting to 'create' a new society based on your 'good ideas' is idealist (or something along those lines). And here you sit, claiming that communism as an abstract idea is actually a material reality.

I mean, do you even know what ideology is? It mystifies me, your thesis. Ideology does not function for humans as an "article of faith" but as a subjective understanding of material reality which is a reflection of actual-existing objective conditions. The proletariat is incapable of spontaneously formulating a 'scientific socialism' to replace communist ideology on their own.

prolcon

9th December 2012, 00:55

It really isn't idealism. It's looking at material characteristics. What are the property relations of different social systems?

Take a look at what defines a capitalistic mode of production versus a socialistic mode of production. Socialist production is predicated on productive development being such that a post-commodity economic order is achieved. Within a socialistic mode of production, what is produced is use-value, as opposed to production being geared toward maximizing exchange value. Now, you are going to sit there and insist that there is no quantitative transition between the two, that there is no time during which the social organization of production is altered to be geared toward production for use rather than profit. You're going to insist that this transition occurs in the blink of an eye, rather than over time. Unless you've grossly misrepresented your own position, this absolutely has to be what you're saying.

It isn't closer to speciation, there's no grey area between capitalism and socialism. Capitalism is a specific form of economy that is based on particular property laws, commodity production and wage labour. Socialism isn't, in fact it's the negation of that. As something cannot be both itself and its opposite, then the distinction between them is... distinct.

Marx himself describes the dialectical character of revolution as the gradual accumulation of quantitative changes that eventually erupt into a qualitative change. I think I recall either Marx or someone else likening the process to liquid water's transition into solid ice. Generally speaking, pure water becomes ice as zero degrees Celsius. It does not become "half" ice at any point; it remains a liquid until it has reached a temperature of zero or lower. We see that ice can persist in water, that water can seem partially frozen, but water ice does not exist but at zero degrees Celsius; not at one degree, not at a half degree, not at a quarter of a degree.

I bring this up because this is more or less the same kind of logic you're applying to the economic transition from capitalist production to socialist production. I argue against this because Engels and Marx did not argue that the mode of production would abruptly change, that all classes and property would vanish in an instant. Instead, the philosophers regarded productive development as the accumulating quantitative changes, the degrees Celsius in this case. When these changes accumulated sufficiently, when the degrees reached zero, Engels and Marx predicted proletarian revolution would occur, that ice would be formed from liquid. That is to say bourgeois political hegemony would be ended. The seizure of power is a revolutionary transition, but the alteration of society's laws, the redirection of the world machine of production, takes time.

As capitalism and socialism are not like lions and tigers, more like lions and fridges ...

The Marxist conception of socialism is predicated on socialism's emergence from capitalism. Refrigerators are not a biological species that emerge from lion populations. I know you love analogy, but you're awful at it, and I'd recommend we keep the conversation grounded in real-world circumstances from here on out. Also, analogy is really kind of an outmoded form a logic; it's how ancient Greek philosophers were able to "objectively" determine that Helios pulled the Sun across the Sky in his chariot.

Blake's Baby

9th December 2012, 01:30

Take a look at what defines a capitalistic mode of production versus a socialistic mode of production. Socialist production is predicated on productive development being such that a post-commodity economic order is achieved. Within a socialistic mode of production, what is produced is use-value, as opposed to production being geared toward maximizing exchange value. Now, you are going to sit there and insist that there is no quantitative transition between the two, that there is no time during which the social organization of production is altered to be geared toward production for use rather than profit. You're going to insist that this transition occurs in the blink of an eye, rather than over time. Unless you've grossly misrepresented your own position, this absolutely has to be what you're saying...

Someone is alive until they are dead, even if they're really really sick. Of course parts of the economy have been socialised, but this isn't communism; it's an attenuated form of capitalism under the control of the proletariat. Property still exists, classes still exist, the state still exists. As socialism is defined by the absence of these things, their presence means we do not have socialism, just as death is defined as the absence of signs of life. If there is still life, there is not death, even if you can't see and your liver's packed up. Until capitalism (not 'capitalist society' as you tried to pretend earlier we were dicussing) is done away with, we won't have a socialist society, because the two states can't exist simultaneously. One can only come about through the superceding of the other. They follow each other; until the process of transformation is complete the one hasn't become the other.

...
Marx himself describes the dialectical character of revolution as the gradual accumulation of quantitative changes that eventually erupt into a qualitative change. I think I recall either Marx or someone else likening the process to liquid water's transition into solid ice. Generally speaking, pure water becomes ice as zero degrees Celsius. It does not become "half" ice at any point; it remains a liquid until it has reached a temperature of zero or lower. We see that ice can persist in water, that water can seem partially frozen, but water ice does not exist but at zero degrees Celsius; not at one degree, not at a half degree, not at a quarter of a degree...

Well, yes, I follow. It's even a failry good analogy for the bourgeois revolutions - more and more bourgeois control of the economy (=more and more energy removed from the system), until a crisis point is reached, at which point a revolution occurs (=ice forms).

...I bring this up because this is more or less the same kind of logic you're applying to the economic transition from capitalist production to socialist production. I argue against this because Engels and Marx did not argue that the mode of production would abruptly change, that all classes and property would vanish in an instant. Instead, the philosophers regarded productive development as the accumulating quantitative changes, the degrees Celsius in this case. When these changes accumulated sufficiently, when the degrees reached zero, Engels and Marx predicted proletarian revolution would occur, that ice would be formed from liquid. That is to say bourgeois political hegemony would be ended. The seizure of power is a revolutionary transition, but the alteration of society's laws, the redirection of the world machine of production, takes time...

Not arguing it doesn't; I'm arguing that it hasn't happened until it's finished (ice doesn't form until 0degrees), whereas you're arguing that it's happened as soon as it's begun (someone puts some water in an ice-cube tray in the freezer).

...
The Marxist conception of socialism is predicated on socialism's emergence from capitalism. Refrigerators are not a biological species that emerge from lion populations. I know you love analogy, but you're awful at it, and I'd recommend we keep the conversation grounded in real-world circumstances from here on out. Also, analogy is really kind of an outmoded form a logic; it's how ancient Greek philosophers were able to "objectively" determine that Helios pulled the Sun across the Sky in his chariot.

How else would the sun move across the sky, if not in a chariot? It can't walk.

Lions are like capitalism, because they are unlike refrigerators, which are like socialism. Lions are lazy and smelly, just like capitalism, fridges are cool and don't eat people, just like socialism, seems pretty straightfoward to me. Lions do not emerge out fridges; they don't really emerge from anything, except other lions, after certain special behaviour of those lions... because when a mummy lion and a daddy lion love each other very much, they cuddle in a special way, much as capitalism emerges from the behaviour of capitalists, who love each other very much, and go about expanding their reproduction all over the place. Socialism, and fridges, however, emerge from the activity of human beings to create something. That's quite unlike lions. And you're quite right, fridges don't emerge out lions. But socialism doesn't 'emerge' out of capitalism either. Socialism is predicated on the destruction of capitalism. So, to that extent, the analogy fails, as fridges do not depend on the destruction of lions.

From the Manifesto, Ch 4: The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.

So; in the 'overthrow of all existing social conditions', property laws and states and wages and commodity production - that is, capitalism - will be abolished; once this has been achieved, the 'ends' that the communists strive for will have been 'attained'; conversely, if 'all existing social conditions' have not suffered a 'forcible overthrow', if property, wages etc - that is, capitalism - still exists, then the communists' aims have not been attained.

Therefore, the revolution isn't finished, until it's finished. It's not enough to start and then say 'hurrah! We've arrived!'. That's foolishness.

prolcon

9th December 2012, 01:38

Someone is alive until they are dead, even if they're really really sick.

Okay, I'm going to stop here and really, really try to talk to you about something: You've revisited this analogy many times already. The very first time you mentioned it, I didn't buy it. I explained why I felt it was a bad analogy. You used it again and really didn't expand much on it. Once again, in response, I explained why the analogy was bad in depth. Your response, in fact, your entire argument was to repeat this analogy verbatim. For one more time, I went very much into depth about why this analogy is bad and why analogy is generally not a good way to argue.

Your response? "You're alive or your dead." Solid work.

Not arguing it doesn't; I'm arguing that it hasn't happened until it's finished (ice doesn't form until 0degrees), whereas you're arguing that it's happened as soon as it's begun (someone puts some water in an ice-cube tray in the freezer).

What I'm saying is that the overthrow of bourgeois political hegemony is revolutionary, but the entire restructuring of world production is going to take time. You've yet to demonstrate that it won't; you just keep revisiting the same shit analogy. Over and over. Without any new information.

Therefore, the revolution isn't finished, until it's finished. It's not enough to start and then say 'hurrah! We've arrived!'. That's foolishness.

You're doing it again; you're deliberately misrepresenting my argument, and I don't know why. Is it that you want to win an argument? Fine, you get to win. I'm not sure how that's improving on anyone's understanding of anything at all, but at least you win.

Blake's Baby

9th December 2012, 01:47

If I'm misrepresenting your argument, then please explain how I'm doing it, because I must be a fucking genius. You keep arguing over and over again that socialism starts as soon as the proletariat assumes political control (the patient is dead as soon as they have a sniffle, ice forms as soon as someone puts water in the freezer, a lion is a tiger as soons as socialism 'emerges' from capitalism in exactly the same way as lions don't emerge from tigers, or whatever). So, if that's not what you're arguing, tell me what is.

By the way, you brought up the ice, and the lions, don't pin either of those on me.

And the reason I'm using analogy is because you don't seem so good at formal logic.

prolcon

9th December 2012, 01:56

If I'm misrepresenting your argument, then please explain how I'm doing it...

You're saying that I've decided that the socialist endeavor is over the moment the bourgeoisie is overthrown, which is weird, because that's precisely what you're arguing: that the revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie IS the IMMEDIATE transformation of the productive character OF THE ENTIRE PLANET TOP TO BOTTOM.

And the reason I'm using analogy is because you don't seem so good at formal logic.It's weird that you say this, because you've never once attempted formal logic in this entire thread. I don't say this maliciously; no one in this entire thread (or in most threads, for that matter) has any poster attempted to configure their arguments according to formal logic.

Nice try, though.

Blake's Baby

9th December 2012, 02:14

You're saying that I've decided that the socialist endeavor is over the moment the bourgeoisie is overthrown, which is weird, because that's precisely what you're arguing: that the revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie IS the IMMEDIATE transformation of the productive character OF THE ENTIRE PLANET TOP TO BOTTOM. ...

Au contraire, Jeremy, if you read the last 20 or so posts (or whatever it is in this thread), I've argued the exact opposite of what you claim I've argued.

I must be really really unclear, which obviously means it's my fault for not explaining it very well; so I'll try again, slowly.

Capitalism is the economic system that currently exists.

Capitalism has a series of distinguishing features that set it apart from other social forms, which apply to capitalism alone and define what it is.

These features are wage labour and commodity production.

Capitalism also has features in common with other social formations.

These features include the existence of particular types of property, classes, and the state.

Socialist/communist society, however, is a different social form, which will have different characteristics, different distinguishing features.

These features will include the lack of a class system, the lack of a state, the lack of capitalism's property laws, the lack of wage labour and the lack of commodity production.

Therefore, if wage labour, states, classes, commodity production exist, then we have capitalism, not socialism/communism.

If the one (capitalism) is to be transformed into the other (socialism/communism), the transformation cannot be said to be complete until all the aspects that make up the one (wage labour, commodity production, classes etc) have been done away with: until they are done away with, capitalism persists: once they are done away with, capitalism is over.

So; no wages, commodity production, states etc in socialism/communism - if they exist socialism/communism has not yet been established.

Is that clearer?

...
It's weird that you say this, because you've never once attempted formal logic in this entire thread. I don't say this maliciously; no one in this entire thread (or in most threads, for that matter) has any poster attempted to configure their arguments according to formal logic.

Nice try, though.

Try me.

prolcon

9th December 2012, 02:23

Au contraire, Jeremy, if you read the last 20 or so posts (or whatever it is in this thread), I've argued the exact opposite of what you claim I've argued.

Welcome to my world.

Therefore, if wage labour, states, classes, commodity production exist, then we have capitalism, not socialism/communism.So what if some of those persist and not others? Just out of curiosity, I'm asking what you feel like calling it.

Is that clearer?What you've made quite clear is that we more or less agree that the persistence of capitalism isn't socialism. Where we disagree is to what extent vestigial elements of the capitalist social order persist into the endeavor under proletarian political hegemony to configure the world's productive forces in such a way as to establish a socialist method of production and distribution. What you've made clearer than even that is that you've done nothing in this thread beyond arguing semantics: the argument you've been having is clearly about what we label something. My argument, my position is and always has been that we cannot dismiss the endeavor to abolish these vestigial elements of the capitalist order that persist under the dictatorship of the proletariat as capitalistic in intent and function.

Try me.Here's an example of formal logic: All human beings are mortal. Bob is a human being. Thus, Bob is mortal.

All A is B. And all C is A. Thus, C is B.

Here's an example of piss-poor analogy (your preferred method): Apples and oranges are different. Life and death are different. Therefor, apples and oranges have as much in common as life and death.

Blake's Baby

9th December 2012, 02:46

Welcome to my world.

So what if some of those persist and not others? Just out of curiosity, I'm asking what you feel like calling it...

Can't really see how you'd have wage labour, without commodity production, or commodity production, without wage labour, or classes without property laws, or a state without classes, so, tell me how different elements can survive, and in which order they're suppressed, and I'll tell you what I think it's called. Or I could save time and say, 'attenuated capitalism under the dictatorship of the proletariat'.

...
What you've made quite clear is that we more or less agree that the persistence of capitalism isn't socialism...

OK, I'm quite surprised, because if we agree on that, I don't know why you've been arguing the opposite for the last 2 pages.

...Where we disagree is to what extent vestigial elements of the capitalist social order persist into the endeavor under proletarian political hegemony to configure the world's productive forces in such a way as to establish a socialist method of production and distribution...

Really? I thought we'd just agreed on that. Elements of capitalism persist after the revolution, until the total re-organisation of the economy, because it's a transformative process. Didn't we just agree on that?

... What you've made clearer than even that is that you've done nothing in this thread beyond arguing semantics: the argument you've been having is clearly about what we label something...

No, the argument I've been having is about whether socialism and capitalism exist at the same time. The argument you've been having, however, extending as it did to evolution, zoology etc, may well have been about semantics.

... My argument, my position is and always has been that we cannot dismiss the endeavor to abolish these vestigial elements of the capitalist order that persist under the dictatorship of the proletariat as capitalistic in intent and function...

Ah, now you've messed it up again. Pages ago I said intent didn't matter; but function really does. If something results in capitalism, it's capitalist. I don't give a shit about intention, it's results that matter. We certainly can dismiss as ineffectual attempts to do away with capitalism that result in capitalism.

...Here's an example of formal logic: All human beings are mortal. Bob is a human being. Thus, Bob is mortal.

All A is B. And all C is A. Thus, C is B...

I know what formal logic is, I used to annoy my Propositional Logic professor no end by pulling him up on the mistakes he made in his book on the subject.

...Here's an example of piss-poor analogy (your preferred method): Apples and oranges are different. Life and death are different. Therefor, apples and oranges have as much in common as life and death.

It's not bad, but I wouldn't give you a First for it.

Did you read this? Of coures you did, you're diligent.

... Capitalism is a specific form of economy that is based on particular property laws, commodity production and wage labour. Socialism isn't, in fact it's the negation of that. As something cannot be both itself and its opposite, then the distinction between them is... distinct...

C =/= S.

If C, then not-S

That is the absolute kernel of what I've been arguing. If you agree that the survival of elements of capitalism for a period after the revolution means we don't yet have a socialist/communist society, good, we're in agreement about that at least. If you agree that the transformation is not completed upon the instant, good, we're in agreement about that.

However, if you insist socialism can be a result of good intentions, not results, I'm afraid we might have to fight about lions and icecubes again.

prolcon

9th December 2012, 02:55

Can't really see how you'd have wage labour, without commodity production, or commodity production, without wage labour, or classes without property laws, or a state without classes, so, tell me how different elements can survive, and in which order they're suppressed, and I'll tell you what I think it's called. Or I could save time and say, 'attenuated capitalism under the dictatorship of the proletariat'.

Granted.

OK, I'm quite surprised, because if we agree on that, I don't know why you've been arguing the opposite for the last 2 pages.

I'm willing to assume responsibility for my role in the persistence of this argument, but I'm still pretty fucking pissed that I've spent this much of my time arguing with someone who, I guess, agrees with me. You'll understand if I'm not very enthusiastic about apologizing, even if I ought to.

Ah, now you've messed it up again. Pages ago I said intent didn't matter; but function really does. If something results in capitalism, it's capitalist. I don't give a shit about intention, it's results that matter. We certainly can dismiss as ineffectual attempts to do away with capitalism that result in capitalism.

See, you've seized upon the word intent and now you're arguing about intent. But what you're saying is that if some attempt to establish socialism fails, it is therefor bourgeois in character and function. This is where we disagree, because this absolutely has to mean that any socialistic endeavor we see where bourgeois political hegemony has not been universally annihilated and the socialist mode of production not wholly implemented, we must dismiss completely. We are sure to accomplish exactly nothing by throwing out every attempt to build socialism that isn't completely perfect.

I know what formal logic is, I used to annoy my Propositional Logic professor no end by pulling him up on the mistakes he made in his book on the subject.

Cute story, but I don't find it impressive. Like you, I've taken a good number of courses on formal logic. I'm not going to pull rank on anyone because of it, though.

Blake's Baby

9th December 2012, 03:08

... this absolutely has to mean that any socialistic endeavor we see where bourgeois political hegemony has not been universally annihilated and the socialist mode of production not wholly implemented, we must dismiss completely. We are sure to accomplish exactly nothing by throwing out every attempt to build socialism that isn't completely perfect...

So, this bit again:

...
More fool you. If I don't intend to electrocute a bath full of nuns, but I do it anyway, does my intention matter? the nuns are still dead. But, I didn't mean it, so it's OK they're alive, is that what you're saying? 'Intent' doesn't matter to fuck. I care much less about what Lenin 'intended' than in what happened. If they produced capitalism (as every 'revolution' up to now has) then their effect is capitalist, because that is what 'effect' means. I'd rather know why they failed (which might just stop us making the same mistakes) rather than saying 'hey Lenin was cool, let's do it all again, because everything worked so well last time lalalalala I can't hear you...'

... As we're not living in a communist society, we have no successes to learn from. So, we can learn from failures, or we can refuse to learn from failures. Which would you prefer?...

prolcon

9th December 2012, 03:13

So, this bit again ...

It starts of with you talking about intent again. And it doesn't address my concern in the least. I do appreciate the enlarged text, though, because I think the trouble I've been having must've been that I can't read text on a screen all that well.

Blake's Baby

9th December 2012, 03:19

It's not exactly intent 'again' as it was the thing I said before you raised the question of 'intent' for the second time; also, you can't see how me saying that I want to learn from the failures of past revolutionary endeavours to avoid the same mistakes, and then asking you if you'd rather learn, or not learn, from the failures of past revolutionary endeavours, rather takes the wind out of your position that I 'dismiss completely' all such endeavours?

I'm quite surprised, because it seems extremely obvious to me that I'm not going to 'dismiss completely' any such revolutionary endeavours - I am, instead, going to learn from them, unlike those who uncritically repeat the same mistakes and learn nothing.

prolcon

9th December 2012, 03:43

Okay, well, I had whole response typed out, but RevLeft crashed for me or something, so I'll give it to you in short:

Intent isn't the question, and it's not something I've brought up as an issue. I argue it's inaccurate to label the effect of socialistic endeavors as being wholly capitalistic, not in that they "intended" to work toward socialism, but that their material effect demonstrates a trend of moving towards what we expect during the socialist stage of human civilization. It isn't helpful to point at, say, China and tell ourselves, "That's all capitalist, so let's never do any of the stuff they did." Even if they haven't ended the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, even if they haven't implemented a socialist mode of production, what have they accomplished in terms of creating a more just society along socialist terms? What achievements have been made that demonstrate a trend of human society moving towards socialism? How have these achievements been made? And what achievements in the first place demonstrate trends toward socialism? In other words, there is no socialism, but what in the world is socialistic and how can we build upon what is socialistic to achieve the socialist stage?

This has been my primary concern throughout this entire thread and, really, in almost every other part of RevLeft that I've slummed around. I don't feel like, in people's criticisms of nominally socialist countries, they really take note of that. It's enough to call something capitalist back to front and just decide never to do anything they did, ever.

robbo203

9th December 2012, 10:14

The point is that you are trying to deduce attributes of a social formation from a definition. Definitions apply to ideas or concepts, unless you are a Hegelian or some other form of idealist you can not assume that social formations are the realisation of a concept of an ideal. You can not predict the future by definition. It would only be possible to do that if the historical process was the realisation of the self development of an idea.

That this is your basic thought pattern is shown by a later post :"Capitalism is a specific form of economy that is based on particular property laws, commodity production and wage labour. Socialism isn't, in fact it's the negation of that. As something cannot be both itself and its opposite, then the distinction between them is... distinct."

You treat one form of society as being 'the negation' of another. This is pure Hegelianism. Negation is a term applicable in logic it could only be applied to social formations if these developed according to the Hegelian system of dialectical logic.

This is somewhat confused. How else is one able to say that a society is "capitalist" or "socialist" except of the basis of some definition of these things.

What you are trying to say, I guess, is that the process of transformation from one kind of society to another is more complex and convoluted than the basic terms would suggest. That is true but that does not invalidate the use of sharp clear-cut definitions. Otherwise you could use these terms in a quite arbitrary fashion and for any purpose you chose. For instance, the Nazis self-defined themselves as "national socialists". Are we to give credence to the suggestion that this meant they sought to establish some form of "socialism"? Of course not.

Among Marxists the term "socialism" has generally meant common ownership of the means of production by the population as a whole. This is simply not compatible with private or sectional - including state - ownership of those means of production. Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate to say that if these latter forms of ownership exists, there is no socialism and vice versa - at least from a Marxian standpoint

Blake's Baby

9th December 2012, 12:01

...
Intent isn't the question, and it's not something I've brought up as an issue. I argue it's inaccurate to label the effect of socialistic endeavors as being wholly capitalistic, not in that they "intended" to work toward socialism, but that their material effect demonstrates a trend of moving towards what we expect during the socialist stage of human civilization....

Actually you 'brought up' the question of 'intent' twice, once on page 2:

...
... I don't look at historical socialist attempts and dismiss their clear diversion from the ideal socialist path as "capitalist" in intent or broad effect. I really don't see how dismissing all revolutionary attempts out of hand has ever helped our movement. It seems we were all a little stronger when we had revolutions to believe in...

and once on page 3:

... My argument, my position is and always has been that we cannot dismiss the endeavor to abolish these vestigial elements of the capitalist order that persist under the dictatorship of the proletariat as capitalistic in intent and function....

So, yes you rather do do keep bringing up the question of intent, and I keep telling you I don't care what the intent is, because if a revolution fails then it fails and it's stupid to pretend it hasn't just because we like Comrade Bastard who is our new Lord High executioner.

...
This has been my primary concern throughout this entire thread and, really, in almost every other part of RevLeft that I've slummed around. I don't feel like, in people's criticisms of nominally socialist countries, they really take note of that. It's enough to call something capitalist back to front and just decide never to do anything they did, ever.

Well, you keep talking of 'gains' and 'moving in a socialistic direction' and I think these things are red herrings. If you want to know why, then Engels' Socialism: Utopian and Scientific is a pretty good start discussing as it does the concept of the 'national capitalist' - the tendency for capitalism from the late 1800s to move from an entrepreneurial form to a corporate form. For many of us this is a valid descrition of the forms of economy and society that existed in the so-called socialist countries. We don't see what the 'gains' or the 'socialistic direction' you're talking about might be, we see capitalism and the state strengthening themselves under these regimes, and that we regard as being the counter-revolution.

What went wrong? Don't know what you think went wrong - presumebaly they didn't move in a 'socialistic direction' enough. For some of us, however, they were incapable of moving in a 'socialistic direction' at all because socialism is only possible when capitalism has been suppressed, and it never has been. So primarily the lesson from Russia is that the revolution needs to spread worldwide not be isolated in a single (albeit large) country; and the lesson from China, if there is one, is don't hand your state to a bandit gang from the mountains.

Paul Cockshott

9th December 2012, 21:21

This is somewhat confused. How else is one able to say that a society is "capitalist" or "socialist" except of the basis of some definition of these things.

What you are trying to say, I guess, is that the process of transformation from one kind of society to another is more complex and convoluted than the basic terms would suggest. That is true but that does not invalidate the use of sharp clear-cut definitions.

Among Marxists the term "socialism" has generally meant common ownership of the means of production by the population as a whole. This is simply not compatible with private or sectional - including state - ownership of those means of production. Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate to say that if these latter forms of ownership exists, there is no socialism and vice versa - at least from a Marxian standpoint
There are several problems here,

You can define all sorts of things, the question is whether the thing you define can actually exist as you define it. For example I can define a unicorn in such a way that you would have no difficulty recognising a conventional depiction of a unicorn in European art. I would describe it as a white beast of exceptional beauty, like the fairest of horses, with a single stupendous white spiral ivory horn in the midst of it forehead. I can go on to say that one can distinguish a true unicorn by the fact that this ferocious beast which tears apart most hunters, will calmly lay its head in a virgin's lap.

That is a good definition of a unicorn, but it does not tell me if I am ever likely to meet one.

I may meet quadrupeds with a horn in their forehead, but their beauty is far from striking, and their horns rather ugly. I may meet white mammals with beautiful spiral ivory horns in the middle of the forehead, but they are aquatic.

You may object that my citing of the unicorn is nothing but a jest in this context, but the jest tells us something. The myth of the unicorn was told by people who had never seen them, but who deduced their existence from what seemed plausible evidence. Their horns were occasionaly to be had on the open market, and the greatest of all philosophers has described the Indian Ass as having a single horn in its forehead. And indeed no less an authority than the Holy Book mentions the unicorn many times. And the relationship between the unicorn and the virgin follows logically since we can deduce that the unicorn, white, the colour of innocence stands in symbolic relationship with our saviour, and the virgin stands for the Holy Virgin, so the unicorn will recognise the virgin as our saviour would recognise his blessed mother.

My point is that definitions of socialism put forward by people in the 19th century were little more informed than definitions of unicorns in mediaeval bestiaries. Neither the writers of the bestiaries nor the 19th century socialists had seen their beast.

robbo203

10th December 2012, 00:49

There are several problems here,

You can define all sorts of things, the question is whether the thing you define can actually exist as you define it. For example I can define a unicorn in such a way that you would have no difficulty recognising a conventional depiction of a unicorn in European art. I would describe it as a white beast of exceptional beauty, like the fairest of horses, with a single stupendous white spiral ivory horn in the midst of it forehead. I can go on to say that one can distinguish a true unicorn by the fact that this ferocious beast which tears apart most hunters, will calmly lay its head in a virgin's lap.

That is a good definition of a unicorn, but it does not tell me if I am ever likely to meet one.

I may meet quadrupeds with a horn in their forehead, but their beauty is far from striking, and their horns rather ugly. I may meet white mammals with beautiful spiral ivory horns in the middle of the forehead, but they are aquatic.

You may object that my citing of the unicorn is nothing but a jest in this context, but the jest tells us something. The myth of the unicorn was told by people who had never seen them, but who deduced their existence from what seemed plausible evidence. Their horns were occasionaly to be had on the open market, and the greatest of all philosophers has described the Indian Ass as having a single horn in its forehead. And indeed no less an authority than the Holy Book mentions the unicorn many times. And the relationship between the unicorn and the virgin follows logically since we can deduce that the unicorn, white, the colour of innocence stands in symbolic relationship with our saviour, and the virgin stands for the Holy Virgin, so the unicorn will recognise the virgin as our saviour would recognise his blessed mother.

My point is that definitions of socialism put forward by people in the 19th century were little more informed than definitions of unicorns in mediaeval bestiaries. Neither the writers of the bestiaries nor the 19th century socialists had seen their beast.

Again, I think you are arguing in a rather confused fashion, mistaking a description of a socialist society for a definition of the same. That a genuine socialist society did not exist in the 19th century anymore than it did in 20th is true enough but that does not bar us from defining what such a society entails. What socialism entails is an inference drawn from our experience and understanding of capitalism along with our own desires and what we perceive to be in our own interests as workers in capitalism..

It is these kinds of things that inform our notion of the broad structural characteristics of socialism. What you are referring to relates to the finegrained detail. Yes, we cannot know for sure what a socialist society would look like in this latter sense although many have engaged in utopian speculations on the matter - one thinks of people like William Morris and his work News From Nowhere.

The details that go to make up such inspired visions of the futiure are historically contingent and technologically variable amongst other things but only make sense in the context of a general understanding of the basic structural characteristics of a socialist society upon which a "definition" of socialism depends. Not only can such a definition of socialism be put forward in advance of establishing socialism but in fact needs to be put forward in advance of establishing socialism. Otherwise it would be like trying to drive from Glasgow to London without knowing there was such a place called London or where it was.

So it is with socialism. We cannot "establish" socialism without having some kind of rough idea of what it is beforehand

prolcon

10th December 2012, 02:09

Actually you 'brought up' the question of 'intent' twice...

I don't know that mentioning the word "intent" makes it a central feature of my position, especially if it's in response to what I feel I'm seeing elsewhere, but whatever works for you.

Well, you keep talking of 'gains' and 'moving in a socialistic direction' and I think these things are red herrings. If you want to know why, then Engels' Socialism: Utopian and Scientific is a pretty good start discussing as it does the concept of the 'national capitalist' - the tendency for capitalism from the late 1800s to move from an entrepreneurial form to a corporate form. For many of us this is a valid description of the forms of economy and society that existed in the so-called socialist countries. We don't see what the 'gains' or the 'socialistic direction' you're talking about might be, we see capitalism and the state strengthening themselves under these regimes, and that we regard as being the counter-revolution.

I don't understand why this was so hard to just say in the first place.

What went wrong? Don't know what you think went wrong - presumebaly they didn't move in a 'socialistic direction' enough. For some of us, however, they were incapable of moving in a 'socialistic direction' at all because socialism is only possible when capitalism has been suppressed, and it never has been.

And we've come to a grinding halt. I really don't know how to explain what I was saying in any simpler terms, so anything I'd end up doing would just be resorting to your preferred technique: repeating what's already been said verbatim and just increasing the boldness and size of the font. Suffice it to say that I think progress can be made within capitalism to move toward the ultimate socialist revolution, and that, while this progress isn't the stage of socialism itself, they can still represent steps in the right direction even if they haven't yet all culminated in capitalism's final defeat. If we socialists were to judge every last one of our successes by whether or not we've ended world capitalism, I don't think most of us would do anything beyond piss about North Korea on RevLeft.

So primarily the lesson from Russia is that the revolution needs to spread worldwide not be isolated in a single (albeit large) country.

What gives me small hope is that you and I really do seem to more or less agree about many things. I think where we differ is how many shades of red we see in the world. I'm going to reiterate that I do agree it's important to judge socialist endeavors by how they effect bourgeois political hegemony and the capitalist mode of production, but my concern is that most of us seem quite content to let fail socialist endeavors if they don't immediately start a global revolution and then to sit by and "learn" from these failures by bantering about them on the internet and in journals.

Blake's Baby

10th December 2012, 08:52

prolcon

10th December 2012, 19:34

But what are 'socialist endeavours'?

I get into arguments with communisation people (at least I think they're communisation people) who say 'but how can you have a socialist revolution that produces capitalism, duur?', and I try to explain that there isn't a 'socialist' revolution but a proletarian revolution. The working class establishes its control; only after it has established control can 'socialisation/communisation' begin. There is a political revolution, and after that there is an economic transfornmation. The economic transformation can only go in a 'socialistic direction' once the political revolution is complete, and the political revolution has never been completed, so the 'socialistic transformation' has never even begun. There is no 'socialistic direction'.

I can appreciate that there is a difference between the proletarian overthrow of bourgeois power and the socialization of production, but I emphatically disagree that attempts to overthrow bourgeois political hegemony are not socialistic in their direction simply because they fail to perfectly disrupt global bourgeois political hegemony. My concern is that there will absolutely be further attempts in the future to challenge the global dictatorship of the bourgeoisie on regional levels, and I don't doubt the possibility of their failing to result in uninterrupted global revolution. I worry that leftists are content to judge, label, and "learn from" these attempts as failures, rather than to enter into their endeavors and help make them successful. There is no expanding the Soviet Union into a worldwide socialist republic now, but what about countries headed by communist parties? Are they so inherently bourgeois in character that they're functionally the same as the United States in terms of this country's congealed neoliberalism? Are we really at square one everywhere?

So perhaps a lot of what we've been arguing about has been using the same words to mean different things, or perhaps not, I still don't know, because in a lot of your posts you seem to suggest that you see the regimes that resulted from the revolution in Russia and the coups in Cuba, China etc as being some sort of 'gain' for the working class, and in other places you agree that the revolution must be international (for example).To clarify, I agree that the global bourgeoisie needs to be overthrown for capitalism's final defeat and the advent of socialism. But I worry, sincerely, that the left is being sapped of energy by a "wait until the time is right" attitude. All revolutions are doomed to revert back to capitalism eventually, but what are we accomplishing by allowing this to happen? What has the left ever actually won on behalf of the working class by labeling revolutions capitalistic? China is clearly capitalistic in function, but what is the plan for China? To build working class consciousness in that country from nothing?

I thought to myself, earlier, about Martin Luther King, Jr. and the state of Blacks in the United States. Even with a president who has identified as Black, our prisons are disproportionately filled with people of color, Blacks are still heinously impoverished, and racism as an institution persists in a worse way in that many people deny that racism even exists in our country! Although there has obviously been no final victory over racism and there is no egalitarianism until such time as racism ends, Dr. King represents accomplishments made for Blacks in the United States. I don't have any doubt in my mind that it's possible for civil rights to be eroded and for things to regress; I'm pretty sure Rand Paul said something about free enterprise meaning that employers and businesses should be allowed to discriminate based on race. But we will never look back at Dr. King and say, "Wow, what a pawn of racism!" So it is, I believe, with socialists.

To me, it seems you're arguing two contradictory positions, both that the revolution must be international, and that a national revolution can be a gain for the working class. If the revolution must be international, it cannot be national. If it is national, it is not (by definition) international. If it is isolated and becomes the change of management of a single country, it has by definition failed as an international revolution. It is not a gain for the working class, it is not moving in a 'socialistic direction', it is not a 'socialist revolution'. If you think it is a gain for the working class, then, you think gains can be made without world revolution, and this to me is reformism not revolutionary politics. If you think gains can be made without overthrowing capitalism, why do we need to overthrow capitalism?See above. And I'm not against reform; I'm against reformism. And there absolutely is a difference: reformism is the notion that the final victory of socialism lies in reforming capitalism into a more just system, while reform by itself means making small wins for the working class within the greater revolutionary struggle. I'm not content to sit by and wait until the world spontaneously erupts into global revolution; working people suffer and they suffer now. The final socialist victory is a ways away, but things can be done right now to make the lives of working people a little easier, if only temporarily. Physicians think similarly: while treating the symptoms doesn't eliminate the disease, it does make the patient suffer less while working toward the disease's elimination from the body. Ours is the task of finding the cure and treating the symptoms while we work on that.

Paul Cockshott

10th December 2012, 20:51

We cannot "establish" socialism without having some kind of rough idea of what it is beforehand

You can not engage in any practical activity without some sort of goal, but what is achieved is often not what was anticipated. That is because in Bard's words there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in our philosophy. The error is to then take the dreams of our philosophy as more real than the material world.

The 'no classes in socialist society', is one of the philosphical dreams that historical practice has shown to be mistaken, analogous to the 'all unicorns are white and beautiful' dream which is contradicted by the impressive but rather ugly rhino.

prolcon

10th December 2012, 21:09

I don't think a rhinoceros is a unicorn, though.

Blake's Baby

10th December 2012, 21:40

I can appreciate that there is a difference between the proletarian overthrow of bourgeois power and the socialization of production, but I emphatically disagree that attempts to overthrow bourgeois political hegemony are not socialistic in their direction simply because they fail to perfectly disrupt global bourgeois political hegemony. My concern is that there will absolutely be further attempts in the future to challenge the global dictatorship of the bourgeoisie on regional levels, and I don't doubt the possibility of their failing to result in uninterrupted global revolution. I worry that leftists are content to judge, label, and "learn from" these attempts as failures, rather than to enter into their endeavors and help make them successful. There is no expanding the Soviet Union into a worldwide socialist republic now, but what about countries headed by communist parties? Are they so inherently bourgeois in character that they're functionally the same as the United States in terms of this country's congealed neoliberalism? Are we really at square one everywhere?

It's not 'global bourgeois political hegemony', it's specifically 'capitalism' here. A bourgeoisie can be dispossessed here or there, it doesn't matter, another one will be along in a minute. For a few years, the west was scared of the Soviet republic because they feared the contagion of revolution. Then, after Lenin's death, they settled down, mostly (the sensible ones at least), because they realised Stalin wasn't a dangerous fanatic like Lenin had been (and Trotsky still was), Stalin was someone they could work with. The USSR even joined the League of Nations.

'Communist Parties' do not make revolutions. The working class makes revolutions. Why should I, as a communist, work towards something I don't want (a state-capitalist party-dictatorship) 'on behalf' of a proletariat that doesn't want it, when I don't even think it's helpful? Are 'we' (revolutionaries? The working class? Humanity?) really at square one everywhere? No, in some places, the working class is struggling more than others. In some places we might have progressed to square three. Is the 'revolutionary organisation' (whatever that may be) at square one? I don't think it's even arrived at the stadium, let alone made it onto the field.

...To clarify, I agree that the global bourgeoisie needs to be overthrown for capitalism's final defeat and the advent of socialism. But I worry, sincerely, that the left is being sapped of energy by a "wait until the time is right" attitude. All revolutions are doomed to revert back to capitalism eventually, but what are we accomplishing by allowing this to happen? What has the left ever actually won on behalf of the working class by labeling revolutions capitalistic? China is clearly capitalistic in function, but what is the plan for China? To build working class consciousness in that country from nothing?...

What have we won by labelling revolutions 'capitalistic'? I haven't really, I've labelled them 'failures'. What have we gained? Clarity about aims and methods. Quite important I think.

While the working class in Shanghai was launching its own revolt, called the Shanghai Commune, in April 1927, and that revolt was being brutally suppresse by the KMT government, Mao Zedong was a member of the KMT, busy carrying out a land-survey for the Executive Committee. 85 years ago, China had a workers' movement, that was gunned down by the allies of the CCP and the ComIntern. Why does China not have a workers' movement now? Becasue the political descendents of the butchers of 1927 have been oppressing the Chinese workers ever since.

Plan for China: 1-repudiate the murderers of the Chinese working class; 2-take it from there.

...I thought to myself, earlier, about Martin Luther King, Jr. and the state of Blacks in the United States. Even with a president who has identified as Black, our prisons are disproportionately filled with people of color, Blacks are still heinously impoverished, and racism as an institution persists in a worse way in that many people deny that racism even exists in our country! Although there has obviously been no final victory over racism and there is no egalitarianism until such time as racism ends, Dr. King represents accomplishments made for Blacks in the United States. I don't have any doubt in my mind that it's possible for civil rights to be eroded and for things to regress; I'm pretty sure Rand Paul said something about free enterprise meaning that employers and businesses should be allowed to discriminate based on race. But we will never look back at Dr. King and say, "Wow, what a pawn of racism!" So it is, I believe, with socialists....

Did Martin Luther King collude in the execution of black people, did he collude in the destruction of their organisations, did he preside over a system which terrorised hundreds of millions of them? If he didn't, you can't really compare him to Mao, or Stalin, or Pol Pot, or any others of the murderous pieces of shit that 'the Left' insists on seeing as 'heroes' and 'examples' and indeed, most sickeningly, 'communists'.

...See above. And I'm not against reform; I'm against reformism. And there absolutely is a difference: reformism is the notion that the final victory of socialism lies in reforming capitalism into a more just system, while reform by itself means making small wins for the working class within the greater revolutionary struggle. I'm not content to sit by and wait until the world spontaneously erupts into global revolution; working people suffer and they suffer now. The final socialist victory is a ways away, but things can be done right now to make the lives of working people a little easier, if only temporarily. Physicians think similarly: while treating the symptoms doesn't eliminate the disease, it does make the patient suffer less while working toward the disease's elimination from the body. Ours is the task of finding the cure and treating the symptoms while we work on that.

And how do you treat the 'symptoms' of capitalism exactly? Do you rob stuff from shops and give it to the poor? Surely, that's the best treatment for the the 'symptoms' of capitalism, isn't it? Perhaps you go and volunteer to do people's jobs for them so they can have the day off (while still getting paid) while you work. That would be a way of treating the symptoms of capitalism.

Things can be done 'right now' to help generalise class consciousness. They're just more difficult than tail-ending liberalism or extolling the virtues of social-democracy-with-bayonets.

Paul Cockshott

10th December 2012, 22:56

I don't think a rhinoceros is a unicorn, though.

And presumably you did not think the man with the white beard and red suit you met in the store as a child was the real santa either.

prolcon

11th December 2012, 02:56

It's not 'global bourgeois political hegemony', it's specifically 'capitalism' here. A bourgeoisie can be dispossessed here or there, it doesn't matter, another one will be along in a minute. For a few years, the west was scared of the Soviet republic because they feared the contagion of revolution. Then, after Lenin's death, they settled down, mostly (the sensible ones at least), because they realised Stalin wasn't a dangerous fanatic like Lenin had been (and Trotsky still was), Stalin was someone they could work with. The USSR even joined the League of Nations.

I'm going to stop here just for a moment to mention that I'd like to keep Stalin-contra-Trotsky out of the focus of our discussion. I'm pretty sure we've plenty of other venues on this (fucking) site for that.

'Communist Parties' do not make revolutions. The working class makes revolutions. Why should I, as a communist, work towards something I don't want (a state-capitalist party-dictatorship) 'on behalf' of a proletariat that doesn't want it, when I don't even think it's helpful? Are 'we' (revolutionaries? The working class? Humanity?) really at square one everywhere? No, in some places, the working class is struggling more than others. In some places we might have progressed to square three. Is the 'revolutionary organisation' (whatever that may be) at square one? I don't think it's even arrived at the stadium, let alone made it onto the field.

I can appreciate concerns regarding party dictatorship, because this really is the same as the emergence of new bourgeoisie.

What have we won by labelling revolutions 'capitalistic'? I haven't really, I've labelled them 'failures'. What have we gained? Clarity about aims and methods. Quite important I think.

But, like I keep mentioning, my concern lies with labeling something a failure in general. I'm glad we can be more clear about what doesn't work, but I feel like we're content to sit back and watch something fail as a "learning experience" rather than jumping into the game and making it into a success.

While the working class in Shanghai was launching its own revolt, called the Shanghai Commune, in April 1927, and that revolt was being brutally suppresse by the KMT government, Mao Zedong was a member of the KMT, busy carrying out a land-survey for the Executive Committee. 85 years ago, China had a workers' movement, that was gunned down by the allies of the CCP and the ComIntern. Why does China not have a workers' movement now? Becasue the political descendents of the butchers of 1927 have been oppressing the Chinese workers ever since.

Plan for China: 1-repudiate the murderers of the Chinese working class; 2-take it from there.

That last bit is cute and all, but it's hardly a plan. And, again, what has "repudiation" ever once accomplished anything for anybody ever? I'm sorry to be so aggressively emphatic, but what is "repudiation" and what in the unholy fuck do you think it will actually accomplish in terms of tangible gains? Worse yet is step two: "take it from there." So you're plan is to say "Hey, fuck Mao" and then just kind of wait for communism to happen?

Did Martin Luther King collude in the execution of black people, did he collude in the destruction of their organisations, did he preside over a system which terrorised hundreds of millions of them? If he didn't, you can't really compare him to Mao, or Stalin, or Pol Pot, or any others of the murderous pieces of shit that 'the Left' insists on seeing as 'heroes' and 'examples' and indeed, most sickeningly, 'communists'.

I didn't compare Dr. King to Pol Pot. I was plugging him into what I feel is the algorithm you use to determine failure. Earlier, we weren't talking about oppression or murder; we were talking about the failure to end world capitalism. Now, we can argue for the rest of our lives about whether Stalin or Mao did such-and-such an atrocious thing, but the fact we agree on is that they failed to end capitalism. Even if heinous atrocities were being committed, what was the plan to remedy the situation in these countries besides their "repudiation" by leftists?

And how do you treat the 'symptoms' of capitalism exactly? Do you rob stuff from shops and give it to the poor? Surely, that's the best treatment for the the 'symptoms' of capitalism, isn't it? Perhaps you go and volunteer to do people's jobs for them so they can have the day off (while still getting paid) while you work. That would be a way of treating the symptoms of capitalism.

Winning higher wages, more accessibility to health care, civil rights for especially oppressed groups, etc. That none of these things occurred to you disturbs me.

Things can be done 'right now' to help generalise class consciousness. They're just more difficult than tail-ending liberalism or extolling the virtues of social-democracy-with-bayonets.

And how do we generalize class consciousness? If that's just more "repudiation," then we're fucked up the Ozarks.

Blake's Baby

11th December 2012, 10:09

prolcon

11th December 2012, 22:03

No, it's not just more repudiation. Repudiation of all the failed horrors is step one. Without step one, none of the succeeding steps matter at all, because the working class as a whole isn't going to give a flying fuck about your party, your programme or your grand schemes. The first thing revolutionaries need to do is dissociate communism from the blighted fuck-up shit of the past. Until they - we, you - do that nothing else in terms of propagandising for communism is possible.

But why does propagandizing for communism have to include buying into capitalistic propaganda? And what exactly is repudiation if not just that and what does it accomplish? And what, exactly, is step two besides "take it from there?"

Comrade, leftists around the world readily and vocally decry the evils of Hitler and Mussolini for reasons that should be obvious. Despite this, bourgeois propaganda, from Rand to O'Reilly, insists, and apparently convincingly, that socialism is fascism, and that historical fascist governments represent the goals and function of socialism. I very rarely hear any anti-communist propaganda that has anything to do with Stalin or Mao anymore! The flavor of bourgeois propaganda today is to dwell upon the name of the National-Socialist German Workers' Party and from there extrapolate that Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, and their ilk were all Marxists. We have a vast preponderance of evidence that shows that this is the exact opposite of what is actually true, but that hasn't made this form of propaganda lose any kind of traction whatsoever. So how is saying, "See, we're the good communists because we don't like Stalin" actually going to accomplish anything and what has it ever accomplished? I know I keep asking that same question over and over, but that's only because I've yet to receive an answer.

I'm disturbed that you think we could argue for ever about 'whether attrocities happened'. We could only do that if you deny that attrocites happened. I don't know why denying the attrocities of the CPSU and CPC isn't considered the same as denying the attrocities of the Nazis personally.

I had several paragraphs typed up about this, but I deleted them. Suffice it to say that the character of atrocities attributed to communism has changed, quite a bit, pulled to and fro in the winds of opportunism and agenda. For example, Stalin's death toll fluctuates wildly between a few and forty million. So, yeah, that people died in atrocious ways isn't up for debate; what's up for debate is how they died, in what number, why, and to what extent can historical communist figures be implicated in their deaths.

Zukunftsmusik

11th December 2012, 22:12

The 'no classes in socialist society', is one of the philosphical dreams that historical practice has shown to be mistaken, analogous to the 'all unicorns are white and beautiful' dream which is contradicted by the impressive but rather ugly rhino.

"Socialism - now with classes! Class society - now with central planning!" Now there's a radical project for you.

prolcon

11th December 2012, 22:37

I have to admit the idea of a classless society with classes strikes me as a little difficult. I understand that classes will persist into the endeavor to abolish classes, and that this endeavor can be and frequently is referred to by the name of socialism, but, strictly speaking, socialism is a part of communism, which is post-capitalism, necessarily meaning that classes, states, and property cease to even exist as concepts.

Blake's Baby

11th December 2012, 23:54

But why does propagandizing for communism have to include buying into capitalistic propaganda? And what exactly is repudiation if not just that and what does it accomplish? And what, exactly, is step two besides "take it from there?"

Comrade, leftists around the world readily and vocally decry the evils of Hitler and Mussolini for reasons that should be obvious. Despite this, bourgeois propaganda, from Rand to O'Reilly, insists, and apparently convincingly, that socialism is fascism, and that historical fascist governments represent the goals and function of socialism. I very rarely hear any anti-communist propaganda that has anything to do with Stalin or Mao anymore! The flavor of bourgeois propaganda today is to dwell upon the name of the National-Socialist German Workers' Party and from there extrapolate that Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, and their ilk were all Marxists. We have a vast preponderance of evidence that shows that this is the exact opposite of what is actually true, but that hasn't made this form of propaganda lose any kind of traction whatsoever. So how is saying, "See, we're the good communists because we don't like Stalin" actually going to accomplish anything and what has it ever accomplished? I know I keep asking that same question over and over, but that's only because I've yet to receive an answer...

Why do think Stalin was a better socialist than Mussolini?

Have you ever tried saying 'the regimes of Eastern Europe were not communist, we don't want to recreate that' to workers? I have, even some times to workers who were born in eastern Europe. Believe me, you get a much better response than when you say, 'we're communists', and allow them to believe that you want to put them in the GULAG or set the Stasi on them.

...
I had several paragraphs typed up about this, but I deleted them. Suffice it to say that the character of atrocities attributed to communism has changed, quite a bit, pulled to and fro in the winds of opportunism and agenda. For example, Stalin's death toll fluctuates wildly between a few and forty million. So, yeah, that people died in atrocious ways isn't up for debate; what's up for debate is how they died, in what number, why, and to what extent can historical communist figures be implicated in their deaths.

Yeah? I don't think there's any serious historian who thinks that Stalin was responsible for the deaths of fewer than several million. Be that as it may; why would we as socialists want to associate ourselves with a mass-murderer?

prolcon

12th December 2012, 00:15

Why do think Stalin was a better socialist than Mussolini?

Seriously? (Don't answer that. I lack hope for leftism enough as it is.)

Have you ever tried saying 'the regimes of Eastern Europe were not communist, we don't want to recreate that' to workers?

I absolutely have. They don't buy it.At least not the first part, anyway. "We don't want to recreate the Eastern Bloc" is something I find people are more willing to accept. The reason for that, I think, is that people see right through the technique of repudiation: we're just trying to dissociate ourselves from historical failures with which our politics are associated. That is absolutely what the method of repudiation is. I find I get further with people when I not only accept the Eastern Bloc as a part of Marxist history, but also accept its historical shortcomings as a natural part of the movement of human social development, rather than trying to play it off as the sin of ideological deviation (or "revisionism;" you'll find that, even if I identify with Leninism, I don't find the paradigm of revisionism all too terribly useful in analyzing history).

I have, even some times to workers who were born in eastern Europe. Believe me, you get a much better response than when you say, 'we're communists', and allow them to believe that you want to put them in the GULAG or set the Stasi on them.

I can't verify whether anyone I've spoken to has actually lived in the Eastern Bloc, having spoken to most of them over the internet exclusively, but I get a very common response, which is more or less that they felt their quality of life was higher when communist parties were in power. I find that this is true especially of Albanians and people alive during Stalin's time; you'd think the exact opposite would be true. Maybe all these unrelated individuals all have the same idea to just fuck with some pasty white American commie?

Yeah? I don't think there's any serious historian who thinks that Stalin was responsible for the deaths of fewer than several million. Be that as it may; why would we as socialists want to associate ourselves with a mass-murderer?

Among those serious historians is, of course, Conquest, and the vast majority of books on the subject, including those that clearly set out to portray Stalin's as a time of horror, very thoroughly explore Stalin's role in these murders and repressions. Anybody with any serious interest in history knows that it isn't individuals that make eras; Stalin's time was a time of various interests pushing and pulling this way and that. We'll get further with people when we stop trying to escape Stalin's shadow and plunge ourselves into the darkness, by which I mean that there are no simple slogans when it comes to questions about the movement of history. The histories of the Soviet Union, of China, of North Korea, of Albania, of Yugoslavia, and any other entity you care to name are nuanced and complex. Bourgeois neoliberalism approaches these with the intent to grossly oversimplify them, to make their judgments on the matter easy to swallow, marketable as slogans and simple trinkets with which to establish one's identity in the capitalist world. The method of repudiation looks to fight neoliberalism on its own terms, to fight back by shouting contradictory slogans and hope our voices aren't drowned out by the immense power of world capitalism. Mine is not the path of sloganeering or making marketable communism. The way to win the hearts of workers isn't to repudiate individuals; it's to at first become active in winning concessions for the working class. This generates genuine, rather than commercial interest in communism, and when the inevitable questions arise, we can answer them. Not with simple sentences; we are then presented with the opportunity to teach working people to think and be empowered by analysis.

Blake's Baby

12th December 2012, 00:55

...
I can't verify whether anyone I've spoken to has actually lived in the Eastern Bloc, having spoken to most of them over the internet exclusively, but I get a very common response, which is more or less that they felt their quality of life was higher when communist parties were in power. I find that this is true especially of Albanians and people alive during Stalin's time; you'd think the exact opposite would be true. Maybe all these unrelated individuals all have the same idea to just fuck with some pasty white American commie?...

Well, I can and have, especially from East Germany and Czechoslovakia, and I always had a much better response when I explained that I didn't think that the regimes that they previously lived under were communism. Some of them had even read Marx.

I'm sure some things were better than they are now, and in for example Russia I guess for some people a lot of things might have been better, but I'm not going to start picking and chosing who's got the best capitalism. I remember watching an interview with some Poles in 1989 who were saying that they wanted political freedom, but they didn't want unemployment, racism and youth crime. Which seems fair enough. You're not going to get me claiming that western democracies are the best thing since sliced bread; and I'm sure that aspects of the former eastern Bloc countries are fondly remembered. But it's not, and has never been, socialism.

...
Among those serious historians is, of course, Conquest, and the vast majority of books on the subject, including those that clearly set out to portray Stalin's as a time of horror, very thoroughly explore Stalin's role in these murders and repressions. Anybody with any serious interest in history knows that it isn't individuals that make eras; Stalin's time was a time of various interests pushing and pulling this way and that. We'll get further with people when we stop trying to escape Stalin's shadow and plunge ourselves into the darkness, by which I mean that there are no simple slogans when it comes to questions about the movement of history. The histories of the Soviet Union, of China, of North Korea, of Albania, of Yugoslavia, and any other entity you care to name are nuanced and complex. Bourgeois neoliberalism approaches these with the intent to grossly oversimplify them, to make their judgments on the matter easy to swallow, marketable as slogans and simple trinkets with which to establish one's identity in the capitalist world. The method of repudiation looks to fight neoliberalism on its own terms, to fight back by shouting contradictory slogans and hope our voices aren't drowned out by the immense power of world capitalism. Mine is not the path of sloganeering or making marketable communism. The way to win the hearts of workers isn't to repudiate individuals; it's to at first become active in winning concessions for the working class. This generates genuine, rather than commercial interest in communism, and when the inevitable questions arise, we can answer them. Not with simple sentences; we are then presented with the opportunity to teach working people to think and be empowered by analysis.

Funny, you regard the task of explaining what communism is (human emancipation) and isn't (mass-murder and a prison-state) as 'commercial' while you regard 'winning concessions' for the working class as... not commercial. Anyway...

I agree that Stalin wasn't responsible for the death of millions because he was 'a bad man', any more than Hitler was responsible for the death of millions because he was 'a bad man', or Mussolini was responsible for the deaths of ... what, hundreds of thousands?... because he was 'a bad man'. No, Mussolini was an idiot. But, if we believe that history is not made by great men, but on the contrary people take actions in historically-constrained circumstances, Hitler is no more to blame than Stalin, is he?

prolcon

12th December 2012, 01:16

I'm sure some things were better than they are now, and in for example Russia I guess for some people a lot of things might have been better, but I'm not going to start picking and chosing who's got the best capitalism. I remember watching an interview with some Poles in 1989 who were saying that they wanted political freedom, but they didn't want unemployment, racism and youth crime. Which seems fair enough. You're not going to get me claiming that western democracies are the best thing since sliced bread; and I'm sure that aspects of the former eastern Bloc countries are fondly remembered. But it's not, and has never been, socialism.

If we define socialism as a stateless, classless condition of human civilization all across the world (that is, if we call a spade a spade), then, no, those states weren't socialism. I'm glad we've got that covered. I think the real question is whether they were trying to win better conditions for the working class. After all, it doesn't do anybody any good at all to sit on our asses and wait for world revolution to erupt before we do anything to help working people improve their quality of life. No, I'm not saying capitalism can be reformed into something good; I'm saying that, until we can strike the final blow against capitalism through socialist revolution, we owe it to working people to fight for what we can.

Funny, you regard the task of explaining what communism is (human emancipation) and isn't (mass-murder and a prison-state) as 'commercial' while you regard 'winning concessions' for the working class as... not commercial. Anyway...

I'm really disappointed in you sometimes. In some places, you can go entire paragraphs without resorting to highly moralized rhetoric that deliberately skews someone's position. Why you can't consistently avoid this is beyond me, although I'd give you my next paycheck if you could quote me saying "communism is commercial" (outside of this post, of course).

I agree that Stalin wasn't responsible for the death of millions because he was 'a bad man', any more than Hitler was responsible for the death of millions because he was 'a bad man', or Mussolini was responsible for the deaths of ... what, hundreds of thousands?... because he was 'a bad man'. No, Mussolini was an idiot. But, if we believe that history is not made by great men, but on the contrary people take actions in historically-constrained circumstances, Hitler is no more to blame than Stalin, is he?

Are you arguing that history is indeed determined by individuals? I'm not going to be spun into saying that the Holocaust wasn't the product of the most evil elements of humanity, but I firmly believe that if it weren't for Hitler, it'd have been some other ranting lunatic's doing. I don't have a time machine, so I have no way of going backwards, removing Hitler, and then seeing how things played out. I firmly believe that the Holocaust, arguably one of the most monstrous blights on the history of human civilization, wasn't the product of individual bigotry, but an atrocious movement of oppressive and murderous elements fomented by capitalism and imperialism.

Blake's Baby

12th December 2012, 08:24

If we define socialism as a stateless, classless condition of human civilization all across the world (that is, if we call a spade a spade), then, no, those states weren't socialism. I'm glad we've got that covered. I think the real question is whether they were trying to win better conditions for the working class. After all, it doesn't do anybody any good at all to sit on our asses and wait for world revolution to erupt before we do anything to help working people improve their quality of life. No, I'm not saying capitalism can be reformed into something good; I'm saying that, until we can strike the final blow against capitalism through socialist revolution, we owe it to working people to fight for what we can...

And why do you persist in thinking that all those of us why oppose Stalinism 'sit on our arses' while all those who support Stalinism are actually 'helping the working class'?

...
I'm really disappointed in you sometimes. In some places, you can go entire paragraphs without resorting to highly moralized rhetoric that deliberately skews someone's position. Why you can't consistently avoid this is beyond me, although I'd give you my next paycheck if you could quote me saying "communism is commercial" (outside of this post, of course)...

I'll let you keep your next paycheck, if you can find where I said you said that. You regard polemicising against the horrors of Stalinism as merely an advertising proposition. However, you regard as 'uncommercial' acquiring the goodwill of the proletariat by securing reforms for them. It seems an odd dichotomy.

...
Are you arguing that history is indeed determined by individuals? I'm not going to be spun into saying that the Holocaust wasn't the product of the most evil elements of humanity, but I firmly believe that if it weren't for Hitler, it'd have been some other ranting lunatic's doing. I don't have a time machine, so I have no way of going backwards, removing Hitler, and then seeing how things played out. I firmly believe that the Holocaust, arguably one of the most monstrous blights on the history of human civilization, wasn't the product of individual bigotry, but an atrocious movement of oppressive and murderous elements fomented by capitalism and imperialism.

I'm arguing they are responsible to the same degree. I'm not trying to tell you what degree you should think that is, but whatever standards you apply to one, you really should consider that you apply the same standards to the other.

Anyway, Hitler, Mussolini and Franco are possibly somewhat beside the point. We should perhaps stick to the crimes of the regimes that described themselves as 'socialist'.

prolcon

12th December 2012, 08:44

And why do you persist in thinking that all those of us why oppose Stalinism 'sit on our arses' while all those who support Stalinism are actually 'helping the working class'?

I didn't say anything like that, either. What is it with you tonight?

I'll let you keep your next paycheck, if you can find where I said you said that.

Funny, you regard the task of explaining what communism is (human emancipation) and isn't (mass-murder and a prison-state) as 'commercial' while you regard 'winning concessions' for the working class as... not commercial. Anyway...

I'll be keeping my paycheck anyway, because it doesn't make sense that you'd "let" me keep it.

You regard polemicising against the horrors of Stalinism as merely an advertising proposition. However, you regard as 'uncommercial' acquiring the goodwill of the proletariat by securing reforms for them. It seems an odd dichotomy.

Because what does "Hey, guys! Stalin was bad!" actually secure for a worker? You act like deliberately painting history in absurdly broad strokes is to be our first step towards greater socialist action. Your plan for China, remember, involved two steps: the first was to repudiate the Chinese government, and the second was to "take it from there." Wouldn't it be better to lead with material acquisition for the worker? He's more likely to regard communists in a better light if they've actually managed to improve his life in a tangible way, not because they nod their heads when it comes time to agree on how awful old Uncle Joe was.

I'm arguing they are responsible to the same degree. I'm not trying to tell you what degree you should think that is, but whatever standards you apply to one, you really should consider that you apply the same standards to the other.

I despise Hitler because he was a ranting lunatic and a hate-spigot who operated within a system that destroyed millions of innocent lives all over the grove and destroyed Germany. I'm ill-at-ease with Stalin as a boorish, chauvinistic pig and a man who presided over a period of intense militarism and the oppression that implies, but at least he didn't destroy the Soviet Union; in fact, for all the troubles it had survive, it was left with nuclear power where it once only had a plow, to paraphrase Churchill. If you were wondering, I admire that I do of Stalin because, if I were ever to some day play as significant a role as he did, I'd dream to accomplish things of similar scale.

Anyway, Hitler, Mussolini and Franco are possibly somewhat beside the point. We should perhaps stick to the crimes of the regimes that described themselves as 'socialist'.

Those with the prefix national- excluded, of course.

Jimmie Higgins

12th December 2012, 08:55

Because what does "Hey, guys! Stalin was bad!" actually secure for a worker?An explaination for why the USSR was not socialism can help workers build towards an alternative. If that alternative is just the USSR, why not just vote social-democrat? Why not just resign yourself to hoping for better leaders and a nicer system.

Capitalism is helped in mainatining an ideological hold over many workers, not with illusions about how wonderful the system is, but with illusions that this is the best that can be hoped for. For most workers, the USSR is not much better, so defending the USSR as "better" just plays into this sense of resignation. Socialism/Communism vs. capitalism in this sense is just one set of policies verses another, Tory or Labor, but IMO the fight for socialism is not one of this vs. that policy, but who has power in society.

You act like deliberately painting history in absurdly broad strokes is to be our first step towards greater socialist action. Your plan for China, remember, involved two steps: the first was to repudiate the Chinese government, and the second was to "take it from there." Wouldn't it be better to lead with material acquisition for the worker? He's more likely to regard communists in a better light if they've actually managed to improve his life in a tangible way, not because they nod their heads when it comes time to agree on how awful old Uncle Joe was.I think this points to a fundamental disagreement about the revolutionary project; I don't think the point is in winning worker's to supporing communism in this passive sense of "the thing that will make life better". I think the point of being communist is to try and help workers to organize themselves to make their lives better and under their own control.

prolcon

12th December 2012, 09:07

An explaination for why the USSR was not socialism can help workers build towards an alternative. If that alternative is just the USSR, why not just vote social-democrat? Why not just resign yourself to hoping for better leaders and a nicer system.

Explaining to them what socialism is in the first place accomplishes the exact same thing, and we do it without going down the route of buying into the gross oversimplification of history. I don't understand where the social-democrat stuff comes from, though.

I think this points to a fundamental disagreement about the revolutionary project; I don't think the point is in winning worker's to supporing communism in this passive sense of "the thing that will make life better". I think the point of being communist is to try and help workers to organize themselves to make their lives better and under their own control.

But wouldn't the fact communism as a political trend has secured things for them give them the confidence to invest themselves in it? You don't cooperate with a political organization because it goes out of its way to tell you how bad a past member was. If a worker is concerned about Stalin, he isn't going to let go of his concern with communism if we just desperately try to explain Stalin away as an "untrue" communist. He'll be more willing to let go of his prejudices about communism if he sees how communism as a political trend can benefit him, and trying to get people to buy into a long-term investment is much, much more difficult if you don't give them more immediate incentives. Yes, communism is what's best for everyone in the end, but we can't rely on people buying into the long term just out of better immediate judgment. It just doesn't happen that way. And I think workers care more about how they're going to keep their homes than with whoever this Stalin yutz is.

Jimmie Higgins

12th December 2012, 09:23

But wouldn't the fact communism as a political trend has secured things for them give them the confidence to invest themselves in it?Again, in this case why not be a Keynsian or Social-Democrat since most workers value the social safty net and programs like Social Security in the US or housing in the UK.

You don't cooperate with a political organization because it goes out of its way to tell you how bad a past member was. If a worker is concerned about Stalin, he isn't going to let go of his concern with communism if we just desperately try to explain Stalin away as an "untrue" communist.I see the USSR as a different class system where there was no worker's power. So this argument is just not one I can agree with on a fundamental level.

On another level, most M-Ls who support Stalin do, in fact, claim that other leaders of the USSR or so-called communist states were "untrue". So it just doesn't work as an argument to say that a line can not be drawn.

He'll be more willing to let go of his prejudices about communism if he sees how communism as a political trend can benefit him, and trying to get people to buy into a long-term investment is much, much more difficult if you don't give them more immediate incentives.

I do believe in trying to organize people for "immediate results" but I just fundamentally disagree on what thoes results are and how they can be achieved. People will become revolutionary socialists when they see that our ideas and militant tactics can help them win.

It's the idea expressed by US Socialist Eugene Debs when he said: "I wouldn't lead you to the promised land if I could; because if I could lead you in, someone could lead you right back out".

People are only going to make any headway, stop austerity in any way, oppose forclosures, win better job conditions, if they organize themselves as a force capable to winning these things from the clutches of the bosses. The USSR has been a barrier to this project in the last century, now we are back at square one, so IMO it is better to fight for the real alternative than to try and rehabilitate a decesed dead-end.

So again, in my view, communism isn't a set of reforms or policies, but a classless stateless society resulting from the self-emancipation of the working class: worker's power.

prolcon

12th December 2012, 09:40

Again, in this case why not be a Keynsian or Social-Democrat since most workers value the social safty net and programs like Social Security in the US or housing in the UK.

Are you asking why, if we're going to use shorter-term gains to get workers to buy into a longer-term plan, we don't just abandon the longer-term plan?

I see the USSR as a different class system where there was no worker's power. So this argument is just not one I can agree with on a fundamental level.

You fundamentally can't agree that people's concerns about communism as a movement don't magically vanish when we insist that it has nothing at all to do with the movement's historical shortcomings? Again, if they're pretty firm in their opinion on communism, changing it has more to do with applying our broad method of analysis to immediate gains as a demonstration of our methodology's credibility. People don't really have a reason to buy into a long-term plan if it involves an investment they can't feel sure they're going to get a return on. Does excusing ourselves from Stalin really accomplish that more than winning certain concessions for them? And is winning concessions for the working class really the same as reformism?

On another level, most M-Ls who support Stalin do, in fact, claim that other leaders of the USSR or so-called communist states were "untrue". So it just doesn't work as an argument to say that a line can not be drawn.

Actually, I don't think the paradigm works in that direction, either.

I do believe in trying to organize people for "immediate results" but I just fundamentally disagree on what thoes results are and how they can be achieved. People will become revolutionary socialists when they see that our ideas and militant tactics can help them win.

They can help them win what?

It's the idea expressed by US Socialist Eugene Debs when he said: "I wouldn't lead you to the promised land if I could; because if I could lead you in, someone could lead you right back out".

People are only going to make any headway, stop austerity in any way, oppose forclosures, win better job conditions, if they organize themselves as a force capable to winning these things from the clutches of the bosses. The USSR has been a barrier to this project in the last century, now we are back at square one, so IMO it is better to fight for the real alternative than to try and rehabilitate a decesed dead-end.

The USSR isn't the barrier! Treating it like it is happens to be the very thing holding leftism back. Trying to rehabilitate socialist failures is as useless an endeavor as going out of our way to "repudiate" them. It doesn't accomplish anything! And it is definitely not our first course of action!

So again, in my view, communism isn't a set of reforms or policies, but a classless stateless society resulting from the self-emancipation of the working class: worker's power.

Yeah, thanks for that? Seriously, "in your view" communism is exactly how the fuck it's defined? Good work.

Jimmie Higgins

12th December 2012, 12:04

Are you asking why, if we're going to use shorter-term gains to get workers to buy into a longer-term plan, we don't just abandon the longer-term plan?Ends and means: fighting in the class struggle under capitalism can potentially help workers understand and organize their power.

You fundamentally can't agree that people's concerns about communism as a movement don't magically vanish when we insist that it has nothing at all to do with the movement's historical shortcomings?I'm not sure what you are arguing here.

I'm saying we do have to adress those issues but also that I reject the argument that the USSR was an example of socialism. I, by all means, counter false propaganda from the US when it comes to the USSR or any number of other countries, but I also don't call for support or excuse them for their own systems of exploitation and oppression.

You seem to be under the impression that opposition to Stalin stems from bending to liberal sentiments or whatnot, but this is not the case. I oppose the USSR from the perspective of revolutionary Marxism and what I believe were the aims and goals of the the revolutionary traddition of Bolshevism. The early Russian Revolution was not ideal, the worker's power in Barcelona or in the Paris Commune was not ideal - there were massive problems in all these examples. But IMO there is a qualitative difference when it comes to the USSR and the later countries that emulated that model; it's not that they weren't ideal, it's that they had no worker's power and were run along a different set of interests.

Again, if they're pretty firm in their opinion on communism, changing it has more to do with applying our broad method of analysis to immediate gains as a demonstration of our methodology's credibility. People don't really have a reason to buy into a long-term plan if it involves an investment they can't feel sure they're going to get a return on. Does excusing ourselves from Stalin really accomplish that more than winning certain concessions for them? And is winning concessions for the working class really the same as reformism?I'm still not certain what you are arguing. I have no problems in fighting for reforms as a means to revolution, I think this is necissary. It's the "for them" part of the argument that I have a problem with. Wining reforms on behalf of workers privilages the role of the activist as the agent of progress rather than the activist (revolutionary) as one who helps workers organize themselves to get what they want. Reform efforts that treat people as passive recipients of change will probably only go so far as refomism: it's like the union beurocrat who mistakes their negotiation skill for the real power- which is working class labor power and the threat of strike. Reform struggles that teach people how to fight for themselves can potentially empower workers and make revolutionary ideas and theory concrete.

The USSR isn't the barrier! Treating it like it is happens to be the very thing holding leftism back. Trying to rehabilitate socialist failures is as useless an endeavor as going out of our way to "repudiate" them. It doesn't accomplish anything! And it is definitely not our first course of action!Well on a practical level, when people are interested in socialist ideas they tend to first think of either the USSR or social-democracy and it's important IMO to fight for the kind of socialism that I actually believe is the only way to win liberation.

Yeah, thanks for that? Seriously, "in your view" communism is exactly how the fuck it's defined? Good work.Thank you, I pride myself on a job well done.

Blake's Baby

12th December 2012, 13:12

...
You fundamentally can't agree that people's concerns about communism as a movement don't magically vanish when we insist that it has nothing at all to do with the movement's historical shortcomings? ...

Why do you think the Stalinist regimes represent the 'shortcomings' of the workers' movement? It's our thesis that they represent the destruction of the workers' movement. They aren't 'shortcomings' they're the counter-revolution. Why would claim the counter-revolution is the revolution?

...
The USSR isn't the barrier! Treating it like it is happens to be the very thing holding leftism back. Trying to rehabilitate socialist failures is as useless an endeavor as going out of our way to "repudiate" them. It doesn't accomplish anything! And it is definitely not our first course of action!
...

They're not 'socialist failures', they're revolutionary failures, ie failures of a revolution, that turned into a counter-revolution. We don't just think 'Stalin was wrong in his policy' we think those regimes represent the triumph of capitalism over the workers. Why would we represent a defeat as a victory?

Zulu

12th December 2012, 16:29

Here is a good rundown about the historical dynamic of this socialism vs. communism thing from the ML viewpoint:

http://marxistleninist.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=learning&action=display&thread=688

prolcon

12th December 2012, 20:35

Ends and means: fighting in the class struggle under capitalism can potentially help workers understand and organize their power.

Isn't that exactly what I've been saying?

I'm not sure what you are arguing here.

If you go up to someone who doesn't like communism, and this is almost always because of shit attributed to Stalin or some other fucker, and you tell them "Hey, Stalin's Soviet Union doesn't represent communism as a political movement," they're not magically willing to accept Marxism.

I'm saying we do have to adress those issues but also that I reject the argument that the USSR was an example of socialism.

So do I, in that the USSR was not a stateless, classless, moneyless stage of world human civilization. I'm pretty sure we've fucking covered this about a vigintillion times.

I, by all means, counter false propaganda from the US when it comes to the USSR or any number of other countries, but I also don't call for support or excuse them for their own systems of exploitation and oppression.

Neither I, but I also don't pretend like they made absolutely no accomplishments and that their development had absolutely nothing to do with the socialist struggle.

You seem to be under the impression that opposition to Stalin stems from bending to liberal sentiments or whatnot, but this is not the case. I oppose the USSR from the perspective of revolutionary Marxism and what I believe were the aims and goals of the the revolutionary traddition of Bolshevism. The early Russian Revolution was not ideal, the worker's power in Barcelona or in the Paris Commune was not ideal - there were massive problems in all these examples. But IMO there is a qualitative difference when it comes to the USSR and the later countries that emulated that model; it's not that they weren't ideal, it's that they had no worker's power and were run along a different set of interests.

There may have been no true proletarian dictatorship, if that's what you mean. To say that these entities were developed along interests completely opposed to the interests of workers, back to front, is inaccurate; it makes it sound like these were conspiracies to seize power using Marxist rhetoric. I happen to subscribe to the view that diversions from true socialist development happen as a result of material conditions, rather than the intent of those involved in their attempts.

I'm still not certain what you are arguing. I have no problems in fighting for reforms as a means to revolution, I think this is necissary. It's the "for them" part of the argument that I have a problem with. Wining reforms on behalf of workers privilages the role of the activist as the agent of progress rather than the activist (revolutionary) as one who helps workers organize themselves to get what they want. Reform efforts that treat people as passive recipients of change will probably only go so far as refomism: it's like the union beurocrat who mistakes their negotiation skill for the real power- which is working class labor power and the threat of strike. Reform struggles that teach people how to fight for themselves can potentially empower workers and make revolutionary ideas and theory concrete.

And now I'm not sure what you're arguing. That we shouldn't allow the working class to be passive with regards to winning concessions? Maybe my language made you think I felt it was the duty of some party to do all the work sans any worker involvement? I can assure you that isn't what I believe.

Well on a practical level, when people are interested in socialist ideas they tend to first think of either the USSR or social-democracy and it's important IMO to fight for the kind of socialism that I actually believe is the only way to win liberation.

Me too, and I don't think "repudiation" of "bad" elements in our history is our first step.

prolcon

12th December 2012, 20:37

Why do you think the Stalinist regimes represent the 'shortcomings' of the workers' movement? It's our thesis that they represent the destruction of the workers' movement. They aren't 'shortcomings' they're the counter-revolution. Why would claim the counter-revolution is the revolution?

Did it occur to you I might consider the USSR to not have beencounter-revolutionary, at least at first? Seriously, what do you think I'm doing here? Infiltrating leftist forums just to purposefully fuck everyone up?

They're not 'socialist failures', they're revolutionary failures, ie failures of a revolution, that turned into a counter-revolution. We don't just think 'Stalin was wrong in his policy' we think those regimes represent the triumph of capitalism over the workers. Why would we represent a defeat as a victory?

Semantics. Not playing this game.

Blake's Baby

13th December 2012, 09:25

The difference between 'victory' and 'defeat' is just a question of semantics?

So, while you think the Stalinist regimes represented 'victories' for the working class, we think they represented defeats for the working class, which you think is just a different way of describing the same thing, and yet you wonder why we want to clarify that the communism we're fighting for has nothing to do with the murderous reactionary shit of Stalinism?

Let me try to make it clear. Stalin presided over a regime that killed more communists than Hitler did, and arguably killed more workers and peasants than Hitler did. Repudiating that legacy is a vital task for any serious revolutionary movement, because as long as the working class links 'communism' to Stalinism (that is, the murder of communists and the destruction of the workers' movement) very few workers will want to have anything to do with it. That is why the primary task of the reovlutionary movement must be to critique Stalinism and explain why communism has nothing at all to do with it. It must not represent defeats as victories, because firstly, it's a lie, and secondly, it isn't even a lie that will help our case. If you think the Stalinist regimes representeed a victory for the working class, that's your business, but then, I don't consider you to be a communist, I consider you to be a supporter of the counter-revolution.

prolcon

13th December 2012, 09:37

The difference between 'victory' and 'defeat' is just a question of semantics?

Earlier, this discussion felt like it was accomplishing something. Now I find my eyes rolling so hard, it actually kind of hurts just to read your username.

The rest of the post is just calling Stalin worse than Hitler, ignoring pretty much our entire conversation about Soviet history, and then reiterating your original assertion sans any new information. So I didn't feel the need to respond to it all quote by quote, you understand.

Paul Cockshott

17th December 2012, 13:45

An explaination for why the USSR was not socialism can help workers build towards an alternative.

I think on the contrary Jimmie, that those who go on about how the USSR was not socialist are thereby excused from facing up to the real difficulties of socialist economies that the 20th century revealed, so that rather than develop a better socialist political economy they theoretically regress to 19th century utopian ideas.

Can you name books on socialist political economy produced by people who claim that the USSR was not socialist?

I you say that the Commune was not ideal, well no society is ideal, but that does not stop the left from idealising the Commune, but there is no reason to suppose that the politcal form of the Commune, with its idirect elections would have resulted in anything radically superior to the USSR or Chinese New Democracy. They were all based on the same constitutional principles of indirect hierarchical voting. These are tailor made for one party rule, presumably Blanquist rule had the Commune taken the offensive against Thiers and won.

Paul Cockshott

17th December 2012, 13:56

Stalin presided over a regime that killed more communists than Hitler did,
Do you have statistics for the number of communists killed in action or by einsatzgruppen ?
It is also not clear why you consider communist war dead to be more memorable than non party Soviet war dead.

Zulu

17th December 2012, 17:20

facing up to the real difficulties of socialist economies that the 20th century revealed

Speaking of which...

Can you comment (or point where you've commented earlier maybe) on this Stalin's passage:

"What is the cause of the fluidity of manpower?

The cause is the wrong structure of wages, the wrong wage scales, the "Leftist" practice of wage equalisation. In a number of factories wage scales are drawn up in such a way as to practically wipe out the difference between skilled and unskilled labour, between heavy and light work. The consequence of wage equalisation is that the unskilled worker lacks the incentive to become a skilled worker and is thus deprived of the prospect of advancement; as a result he feels himself a "visitor" in the factory, working only temporarily so as to "earn a little money" and then go off to "try his luck" in some other place. The consequence of wage equalisation is that the skilled worker is obliged to go from factory to factory until he finds one where his skill is properly appreciated.

Hence, the "general" drift from factory to factory; hence, the fluidity of manpower.

In order to put an end to this evil we must abolish wage equalisation and discard the old wage scales. In order to put an end to this evil we must draw up wage scales that will take into account the difference between skilled and unskilled labour, between heavy and light work. We cannot tolerate a situation where a rolling-mill worker in the iron and steel industry earns no more than a sweeper. We cannot tolerate a situation where a locomotive driver earns only as much as a copying clerk. Marx and Lenin said that the difference between skilled and unskilled labour would exist even under socialism, even after classes had been abolished; that only under communism would this difference disappear and that, consequently, even under socialism "wages" must be paid according to work performed and not according to needs.

...

And what does promoting them to higher positions and raising their wage level mean, what can it lead to as far as unskilled workers are concerned? It means, apart from everything else, opening up prospects for the unskilled worker and giving him an incentive to rise higher, to rise to the category of a skilled worker. You know yourselves that we now need hundreds of thousands and even millions of skilled workers. But in order to build up cadres of skilled workers, we must provide an incentive for the unskilled workers, provide for them a prospect of advancement, of rising to a higher position. And the more boldly we adopt this course the better, for this is the principal means of putting an end to the fluidity of manpower. To economise in this matter would be criminal, it would be going against the interests of our socialist industry."

http://marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1931/06/23.htm

I presume you don't really approve of this, and especially of the fact that in a while Stalin claimed that skilled specialists' being paid more was realization of the "according to labor" principle, completely disregarding Engels' argument in Anti-Duhring as to why skilled workers cannot expect to be additionally remunerated for their "compound labor" under socialism (their skills being basically a sort of public property). Still, Stalin's premises - the manpower fluidity and lack of incentive in an egalitarian environment - stand: it was tried out during the NEP and the first couple of years of the industrialization, but apparently, it didn't work so well.

But on the other hand, Engels appears to actually criticize the very principle of the attempts to find an "according to labor" solution, because it's no different from what we have under capitalism anyway and could only lead the economy back to valuation of all products as commodities via market:

"For socialism, which wants to emancipate human labour-power from its status of a commodity, the realisation that labour has no value and can have none is of great importance. With this realisation all attempts — inherited by Herr Duhring from primitive workers’ socialism — to regulate the future distribution of the necessaries of life as a kind of higher wages fall to the ground."

http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch18.htm

"The “exchange of labour for labour on the principle of equal valuation”, in so far as it has any meaning, that is to say, the mutual exchangeability of products of equal social labour, hence the law of value, is the fundamental law of precisely commodity production, hence also of its highest form, capitalist production. It asserts itself in present-day society in the only way in which economic laws can assert themselves in a society of private producers: as a blindly operating law of nature inherent in things and relations, and independent of the will or actions of the producers. By elevating this law to the basic law of his economic commune and demanding that the commune should execute it in all consciousness, Herr Duhring converts the basic law of existing society into the basic law of his imaginary society. He wants existing society, but without its abuses. In this he occupies the same position as Proudhon. Like him, he wants to abolish the abuses which have arisen out of the development of commodity production into capitalist production, by giving effect against them to the basic law of commodity production, precisely the law to whose operation these abuses are due. Like him, he wants to abolish the real consequences of the law of value by means of fantastic ones."

http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch26.htm

Jimmie Higgins

18th December 2012, 12:57

I think on the contrary Jimmie, that those who go on about how the USSR was not socialist are thereby excused from facing up to the real difficulties of socialist economies that the 20th century revealed, so that rather than develop a better socialist political economy they theoretically regress to 19th century utopian ideas.The problem with the USSR's economy, in my view, was not the "how" but the "who".

I you say that the Commune was not ideal, well no society is ideal, but that does not stop the left from idealising the Commune, but there is no reason to suppose that the politcal form of the Commune, with its idirect elections would have resulted in anything radically superior to the USSR or Chinese New Democracy. They were all based on the same constitutional principles of indirect hierarchical voting. These are tailor made for one party rule, presumably Blanquist rule had the Commune taken the offensive against Thiers and won.Socialism is not distinguished by consitutional principles or the form of voting, it's distinguished by what class runs society.

Red Enemy

18th December 2012, 16:25

Socialism is not distinguished by consitutional principles or the form of voting, it's distinguished by what class runs society.
I think this is quite vague, as the transitional phase (which is not purely capitalism nor socialism) is referred to as the dictatorship of the proletariat. That is the workers running society.

Unless you suggest that socialism is equivalent to the dotp?

Paul Cockshott

18th December 2012, 20:30

The problem with the USSR's economy, in my view, was not the "how" but the "who".

Brezhnev was nasty but we are nice?

Socialism is not distinguished by consitutional principles or the form of voting, it's distinguished by what class runs society.

In the short term you are right, but in the long term the constitutional form of the state is very important. The commune form or the soviet form of state, or for that matter the constitution the PRC adopted are ideal for revolutionary change in the short run because they allow avant guarde elements to control the state excluding others via the indirect electoral system. These avant guarde elements - Blanquists, Leninists, Maoists, can constitute a form of rule by the working people, but that sort of aristocratic constitution is not a form that allows the working classes to dominate politics in the long run.

Paul Cockshott

18th December 2012, 20:39

In reply to Zulu, these are very important issues you raise.

I would say
1) That Marx recognised the need for different rates of pay according to individual strength or productivity.
2) That there was a real issue of how to motivate people to acquire skills and that the use of flat rate wages probably discoraged this.

However the great danger here is to go from saying that more skilled, and thus more productive, workers within a given trade should be paid more, to saying that different trades or professions should be ranked according to the time taken to learn the skill with those requiring more training being paid more. The latter course leads to the reimposition of class differences between the working class and the inteligentsia.

Engels is right that skills acquired in a socialist economy should in principle belong to the community, but this is only the case if people are paid the full cost of their time spent learning the skill. If people have to undergo unpaid sacrifices themselves whilst learning a skill Stalin's objection was well founded. A better policy would have been to pay people for the time and effort spent learning skills.

Zulu

18th December 2012, 21:34

However the great danger here is to go from saying that more skilled, and thus more productive, workers within a given trade should be paid more, to saying that different trades or professions should be ranked according to the time taken to learn the skill with those requiring more training being paid more. The latter course leads to the reimposition of class differences between the working class and the inteligentsia.

This is not exactly how it happened in the post-Stalin USSR. Actually, by the 1980s industrial workers were paid higher wages than most engineers, doctors, teachers and university professors. Some even blame Khrushchov (who else;) for this, seeing it as part of his "subversive activities" which undermined the "intellectual strength of the USSR". But I think, it pretty much reflected the labor power shortages described in R.C. Allen's book, suggesting that labor market always existed in some form in the USSR, or at least that the wages were regulated by similar laws.

The real class differences formed thanks to the "shadow sector" and the party bureaucracy degeneration, but there are some indications that the shadow sector was more important. And it attracted many people from their early youth.

So maybe there should be wider opportunities for legal property acquisition early in the socialist construction, and instead of an attack on the pay rate front, efforts should be concentrated on other issues, such as abolition of property inheritance and society-centric education of children - all under some slogan about "equal opportunity for each".

In short, in my opinion, it's half the trouble if some citizens eat caviar more often and have bigger TVs than others, as long as they've earned it by rendering their services to the society. The real trouble starts when their children, who haven't yet contributed anything, eat the same caviar and watch the same TVs, and generally get a head start in life compared to others. That's where class differences and private property arise from.

Paul Cockshott

19th December 2012, 11:26

You may be right about the USSR, I know that heavy industrial workers were still paid more than most intellectual workers in the 80s. In China though the difference between the wages of those with University education and none was very big by the end of the 90s. Of course the situation in the USSR did mean that the intelligentsia had less to lose from the restoration of capitalism than manual workers had - no significant decline in life expectancy for those with University Education, but big rises in mortality for those without it after Yeltsin came in.

Spurcatu

26th December 2012, 04:28

Communism is more like a stand-alone denomination while for me Socialism is a more blanket-term that can include Communist, Anarchist, Libertarian and maybe even social-liberal tendencies. Or defined as the whole spectrum between center and left or at least the last 25% going from center towards left.

Paul Cockshott

4th January 2013, 10:09

This appears to be very much the orthodoxy from BUkharin down to Khruschev and the 3rd programme of the CPSU.

— Le dernier point concerne la monnaie, et né
cessite de distinguer entre socialisme et communisme.
Dans la société socialiste, « intermédiaire inévitable entre le
capitalisme et le communisme», la monnaie est nécessaire.
Elle a un rôle à jouer dans une économie qui connaît encore
des marchandises, car elle est l'équivalent général. Les
échanges restent monétaires, notamment dans la mesure
où, même si la bourgeoisie a été éliminée, le paysan de
meure un producteur de marchandises. Les auteurs
ajoutent cette précision justifiant le bien-fondé de la
« planche à billets » : « II serait désavantageux de supprimer
entièrement la monnaie, aussi longtemps que l'émission de
papier-monnaie est un substitut de l'imposition, aussi long
temps que cela aide l'Etat prolétarien à affronter les condi
tions extrêmement difficiles qui prévalent à ce moment»
(p. 38).
Le besoin de monnaie disparaît avec l'instauration
progressive du communisme. Toutes les entreprises natio
nalisées auront, en effet, un centre comptable commun et
n'auront plus besoin de monnaie pour leurs achats et
ventes réciproques. Par degrés, un système de comptabilité
sans monnaie prévaudra, et cela vaut également pour les
paysans : « Le coup le plus dur porté au système monétaire
le sera avec l'introduction des livres de compte et le paie
ment des travailleurs en nature» (p. 39). Les auteurs consi
dèrent toutefois qu'il faut attendre pour cela la reconstruct
ioetn l'ex pansion du système industriel. From summary of
Bukharin and Proebrazhenkys views in Arrous Jean. Socialisme et planification : O. Lange et F.A. von Hayek. In: Revue française d'économie. Volume 5 N°2, 1990. pp. 61-84.
By abandoning Marx's idea of labour accounts and keeping money until they
could provide workers with 'in kind' payment accounts the Soviets put theselves in
a dead end. They had got rid of Marx's method for abolishing money and replaced
it with a totally impractical scheme for payment in kind - something that worked
in a primitive communist system but could not work in an industrial economy because
of the diversity of peoples consumption patterns. Followed through it would have
implied an increasing role for rationing in the economy with more and more goods
being allocated according to fixed rations. Such a system is fair in a crude way
since everyone gets the same amount of bacon whether they are Jewish or not, but
it is obviously unfair in other ways.

Blake's Baby

4th January 2013, 11:18

Marx made a distinction between communism and socialism,just read the Manifesto,now he dosen't say that communism is like this while socialism is like this in the Manifesto but he does use the terms as distinct.

"The Socialist and Communist systems, properly so called, those of Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen, and others, spring into existence in the early undeveloped period, described above, of the struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie."The Communist Manifesto

And many other references,just read the Manifesto.

Communism is the finall stage,a continous one while Socialism is the middle stage between Capitalism and Communism.

Capitalism->Socialism->Communism

You make a claim, put in a quote that doesn't support your claim, then make your claim again.

Now, if you think Marx sees 'socialism' as a middle stage between communism and capitalism can you quote Marx to show it please?

In the meanwhile, here's a quote - from Marx, from the Critique of the Gotha Programme, Part IV - "Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

No mention there of 'socialism' as a middle stage, just the dictatorship of the proletariat and the revolutionary transformation of capitalist into communist society.

Blake's Baby

4th January 2013, 13:17

I'm a Marxist, I know what the deal is with 'socialism or communism', but you don't it seems. Give me a quote where Marx says that 'Socialism is the middle stage between Capitalism and Communism'. If you can't, I suggest you stop making claims about things you don't know about.

Blake's Baby

4th January 2013, 13:46

He dodesn't treat them as distinct. If you think he does, find a quote where he treats them as distinct. In what you quoted before, he calls all of those systems - Owens, S. Simeone's etc - 'socialist and communist'. Seems to mee that means he thinks they're the same.

If you don't think Marx thought that 'Socialism is the middle stage between Capitalism and Communism' then why do you think it? And what does it have to do with Marx?

Blake's Baby

4th January 2013, 14:40

I guess is harder to get the point when is writting involved,especially when english ain't my main language.So let's take it from the begining.

1)I said that Marx made a distinction between communist ands socialist systems which I tought it was obvious when I quoted "The Socialist and Communist systems" which implies that they are somehow different,otherwise he would say just the socialist systems or just the communist systems...

Right, but that distinction isn't necessarily real. I agree that it's one way of interpreting it - that he means 'socialist systems and communist systems'; but a more natural way to interpret it, I think, is that the 'systems' are the same and that that the people who created them called 'socialist' and 'communist'.

...2)I claimed that socialism is the stage between capitalism and communism.I didn't said the words 'Marx said that socialism is the stage between etc'. now did I?Now the fact that my claiming that socialism is a stage between capitalism and communism correspond to those of the dictionary I guess is just a coincidence?...

I guess whatever dictionary you're reading was written by someone who doesn't know what they're talking about either.

...3)I believe Marx reffered to socialism when he reffered to the lower stage communism.I didn't ever said that Marx called lower stage communism socialism.

I believe if Marx had wanted to call that 'socialism' he would have done so. He didn't, and there's no reason for anyone else to. Of course, you can, but you can't claim it has anything to do with Marx, because it doesn't.

Blake's Baby

4th January 2013, 15:14

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????

So if someone tells another capitalist and communist systems,the natural way to interpret it is that the systems are the same and the people who created them are called capitalist and communist.Very smart indeed...

No. Marx is talking about one group of things - systems, that are called 'socialist' and 'communist'. Do you think 'workers' parties and proletarian parties' are different things? No, because 'workers'' and 'proletarian' mean the same thing - there is a group of things ('parties') that is called 'workers' and proletarian'. Likewise, 'socialist and communist' systems mean systems (one group of things) called 'socialist' and 'communist'.

...
Yeap,not one but many dictionaries are wrong and you are right...

Yes, if words refer to things, then there must be a framework, otherwise penguin eggnog particle flan roast potato sideboard wobble.

...
Well I guess it would be hard to talk about a higher stage of communism if you indicated that the first stage is called socialism,it would not make sense now dosen't?...

Precisely. There is a 'lower phase of communism' and a 'higher phase of communism', not 'socialism' and 'communism'.

...
But I guess that the dictionaries are just plain wrong,I guess that the professor of politics is wrong...

Yes.

...Everyone else is wrong and you are the man with great ideas but that just isn't understood by the rest of the mediocre population.
Every forum haves this type of person.

Nice talking to you!(not really)

I think you'll find that all Marxists except Stalinists and Trotskyists agree that 'socialism' and 'communism' are the same thing, and the vast majority of Anarchists do too. So, no, I don't think it's just me, I think it's just 'you' - and your mistaken co-thinkers.

Paul Cockshott

4th January 2013, 15:16

blake is half right in that by socialism Marx meant the proposals of the socialists.
he is half wrong because marx only proposed communism and he never proposed the Kruschev Bukharin free distribution scheme.

Blake's Baby

4th January 2013, 15:30

That's up to you. But you've offered no evidence to back up what you've said - whereas I have - so on the whole, I'm happy enough if you think I'm wrong, because I know I'm right, and your opinion on things you don't know about realy doesn't matter.

Conscript

4th January 2013, 15:59

Was lenin just rebranding the lower and higher phase of communism when he distinguished between socialism and communism? Did he combine the dotp and the lower phase as I've heard?

Blake's Baby

4th January 2013, 16:41

I think he combined the DotP and the lower phase and called them 'socialism'.

Blake's Baby

4th January 2013, 17:23

I've got an idea MDC - why don't you go back and alter your posts 2 hours after I've already replied to them? That way it looks like you've supplied 'evidence' that wasn't there when I replied?

I don't care if Bertell Ollman called the Lower Phase of Communism 'socialism'. What I was asking for was evidence Marx did.

Blake's Baby

4th January 2013, 17:46

An answer to what? You said Marx distinguished between socialism and communism, I asked for evidence, you two hours later added a quote to say that bertell Ollman distinguished between socialism and communism.

I'm a Marxist. I don't care if you're not, but you're claiming something that isn't true - Marx never distinguished between socialism and communism. Why don't you just admit it?

Conscript

4th January 2013, 17:54

I think he combined the DotP and the lower phase and called them 'socialism'.

You're not certain?

Brosa Luxemburg

4th January 2013, 17:55

@MDC5000

You are right and you are wrong. Marx and Engels used the terms "communism" and "socialism" interchangeably. Some differentiate between communism and socialism as different stages, but this started more with Kautsky and Lenin rather than Marx and Engels.

Blake's Baby

4th January 2013, 18:06

You're not certain?

His statements are ambiguous at best, in my opinion. At different times he seems to offer very different perspectives. At one point he says "Socialism is nothing but state capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people".

At best, I'd call that the DotP, not socialism, and only then if the working class (not the Party) is in charge of the state.

Blake's Baby

4th January 2013, 18:21

So, by 'communism' do you mean what Marx called 'Scientific Socialism'?

Marx lists 'Socialist and Communist Literature' because the people that wrote it called it either 'socialist' or 'communist'. If he thought they were different he would have called one section 'Socialist literature' and a different section 'Communist literature'. But he didn't - the literature is 'Socialist and Communist'.

Conscript

4th January 2013, 18:37

Man,Marx distinguished between socialism and communism.

I don't think so. In critique of the gotha program he makes no mention of it, only that between capitalism and communism there is the DOTP, which still has property, states, and classes. From there the state expropriates the bourgeoisie until everyone has the same relationship to the means of production, they are workers. Society becomes classless, the state loses its function, and the means of production are held in common.

At best, I'd call that the DotP, not socialism, and only then if the working class (not the Party) is in charge of the state.

That's a fair assessment. Still, there might be some truth to it. Marx talked about the necessity of extracting surplus value in lower communism to afford the expansion and maintenance of the means of production, along with disaster funds. Lenin pointed out in state & revolution a sort of 'semi-state' would be necessary in (lower) communism, implying that its inherent issues of scarcity would provoke crime and political resistance as workers are still being exploited, but nothing like that of the class antagonisms in bourgeois society.

I'd tend to agree. In any lower communist society, I can easily imagine some sort of semi-state sanctioning distribution and managing the surplus value afforded to them by the workers, because it is necessary. Scarcity, I believe, is *the* birthmark of capitalism, and until it is gone, we either are capitalist or always face its restoration (but don't conflate the latter with mao's ideas).

Would this not manifest as state capitalism? Also, do you think this lends credence to the idea socialism in one country or a few is impossible? As at the root of that question is if post-scarcity and common ownership can be established within a country. It's hard enough to gear all the world's resources to it, let alone a country's, I'd say.

Conscript

4th January 2013, 18:52

In Marxist theory, socialism, lower-stage communism or the socialist mode of production, refers to a specific historical phase of economic development and its corresponding set of social relations that eventually supersede capitalism in the schema of historical materialism. Socialism is defined as a mode of production where the criterion for economic production is use-value, and is based on direct production for use coordinated through conscious economic planning, where the law of value no longer directs economic activity, and thus monetary relations in the form of exchange-value, profit, interest and wage labor no longer operate. [1] Income would be distributed according to individual contribution

The dotp is none of these. It is distinct from socialism, it is capitalism and the state turned on its head, but it cannot operate outside of its economic laws. The superstructure can't 'escape' its base. There is capital, wage-labor, a state, and possibly, a nation-state if the revolution is limited to it.

The dotp is the revolution manifested. It's like confusing the battle and the victory afterwards.

Conscript

4th January 2013, 19:02

Uncited, and baseless as far as I know the works. Furthermore, whoever wrote that was pulling concepts out of their ass. The idea that 'full socialism' has to 'wait' until 'cultural attitudes adjust' is anti-marxist and idealist.

Conscript

4th January 2013, 19:20

Ow and regarding the works,how do you differenciete from does that are good and those that are "bad" if you haven't read them?

I'm not defending wikipedia for not citing and etc.,just curious how do you know how do you know one book is right and one is wrong

Since when are they contradictory?

And by 'as far as I know' I'm telling you I'm not infallible, not that I'm ignorant.

Brosa Luxemburg

4th January 2013, 19:24

MDC5000 how about you base your views on things other than quick google searches and Wikipedia entries. You haven't provided any evidence to show that Marx and Engels considered socialism and communism separate stages.

Conscript

4th January 2013, 20:31

That I BELIEVE THAT WHEN MARX SAID LOWER STAGE COMMUNISM HE REFFERED TO SOCIALISM

I never stated that Marx specifically stated that socialism is the lower stage communism.

These seem contradictory. Regardless the point was this trend started after marx's time, and you haven't proven otherwise.

Camaradus

5th January 2013, 10:56

With all due respect, comrades and friends, this particular thread insofar as theoretical specificity in definition of the respective Marxist terminology is concerned; is thoroughly exhausted when accounting for the elementary nature of the particular theoretical content under scrutiny found in the particular thread. Or must we preface in statement, 'from a certain point of view'?

Should a "tendency" be traditionally required to the proceeding interpretation, Marxist-Leninist it is for certain. Still, the relevance of "tendencies" would seem arbitrary when considering the substantially objective sphere of application in such a particular analysis. This is of course, if one's "tendency" is willing to adopt a revolutionary interpretation of Marxism as an objective prerequisite. Quite frankly, it would seem there is no logical, philosophical, let alone dialectical reason to do otherwise. Marxism is in fact, a revolutionary ideology, intended to inspire a socially revolutionary method.

"The philosophers have only interpreted the world; in various ways. The point however, is to change it." -Marx
"Force is the midwife of every old society pregnant with the new." -Marx

Digressing:

What we are dealing with, is precisely two separate phases, or social stages, of the dialectically foreseen society sprung from the womb of capitalism, according to Marx.

“Socialism”, according to Marx, grueling semantics aside which may only serve bourgeois perpetuation, can be defined as nothing other than a society, generally speaking, in which there is no politically cultivated difference between the members of society in relation to the social means of production. i.e. bourgeois property relations are being directly confronted in profusion by the successful unification and organization of the proletariat, with the organized proletariat emerging as the subsequent victor in the respective confrontations of the private property relations; thus yielding the formal recognition of socialized production; socialized production alongside socialized appropriation of the means of production versus its recent predecessor, the antagonism between wage labor and capital; socialized production alongside capitalistic appropriation of the means of production(surplus appropriation). This is of course to be accomplished, courtesy of the proletariat's revolutionary attainment of political supremacy via destruction of the bourgeois state and the creation of the proletarian one.

This can be defined as nothing other than the "dictatorship of the proletariat", the transitory medium in a solely theoretical sense, through the "withering away" of the proletarian democratic state; "the withering away of democracy itself", which is just one more particular form of a state (as so lucidly pointed out by the tireless studies of Lenin), to the theoretical social objective of “communism”, a stateless society. Stateless, due to the stipulation, that no political power is required in order to pacify the class antagonism in the respective society; for classes no longer exist.

"The working class, 'in the course of its development', will substitute for the old civil (bourgeois) society, an association that excludes classes and class antagonisms, and 'there will no longer be any political power, properly so called', since political power is precisely the official expression of the antagonism in civil (bourgeois) society." -Marx (Interpretation: Path through Socialism culminating in Communism; our italics)

"Let us not say that the social movement excludes 'a political movement'. There is no political movement which is not at the same time social. It is 'only in an order of things', when there are no longer classes and class antagonisms, 'in which social evolution will cease to involve political revolution'. Until then, the last word of social science, on the eve of every general reconstruction of society, will always be, 'Battle or death, Bloody struggle or extinction, It is thus that the question is irresistibly put.'(George Sand)” -Marx (Interpretation: Path through Socialism and ultimate political juxtaposition of socialism and communism; with our italics)

Communism, as well as the commencement of "real human history", according to Marx, begins only when the proletariat has completely abolished itself as proletariat, like all other social classes in society, as a social class in the all-inclusive population of the given society. The general division of labor, along with the division between mental and physical labor, along with the division between town and country, once existent in the transitory society of the proletarian state, socialism; theoretically becomes fully withered away in the forthcoming stateless society; communism.

"Human" society, now "free" for the first time(provided of course it is willing to concede a potential void of liberty due to particular elements in a persistent, ongoing struggle against nature; as opposed to fellow-man), with "all the social springs of wealth flowing more freely"(Marx),may inscribe upon its banners: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."(Marx).

How confident we are, such a theoretical interpretation, altogether seemingly objective, will nonetheless be met with constructively critical contention in the confines of such the respective thread. "Tendencies" front and center, of course.

As for our preemptive response: Enough theory for this particular day, comrades and friends; this particular day only. As for the balance of this particular day: Onward toward the extension of a comradely hand to your fellow propertyless worker and human being. Tis a progressive honor in such an act. Further, tis an act which may be implemented immediately. This much at least, we must find to be unanimously irrefutable should we ever aspire to attain our mutual revolutionary ends.

After all, Marx's own, most esteemed comrade, would seem to have concurred:
"An ounce of action is worth more than a ton of theory" -Engels