Revolution, Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and Socialism

[Red Enemy]

This thread stems from the conversation being held in the "Why the Communist Left annoys me" thread. The purpose is clarification, discussion, and relocating to the appropriate place of discussion. Myself, taking the position defending the necessity of a DOTP, and robbo taking the position of opposing it as even a possibility. This entire thread is meant for everyone's input, but I more or less seek answers from robbo.

Revolution:

I, and probably most Marxists, view the revolution as encompassing the class struggle, seizure of power, dictatorship of the proletariat, and abolition of capitalism (therefore the establishment of socialism).

However, others view the revolution in terms that exclude the idea of political power.

For instance, the notion that the proletariat will be a vast majority (worldwide) of class conscious and socialist minded folk, so at it's insurrection of the bourgeoisie capitalism is immediately abolished (without explanation of how). This, I thought, was only held by those who believed in "instant, simultaneous and global revolution (insurrection)". However, as I have seen, it is also a view expressed by those who view the revolution as a "domino effect". The revolution will abolish capitalism in the UK, then it will happen in Germany, then Ireland, then Ukraine, then Mongolia, then Afghanistan, etc. No time frame is given, but the idea is that.

The national bourgeoisie will not be an issue, for capitalism (class) is abolished.

The international bourgeoisie will not be an issue, for the vast majority in their nations will be class conscious and socialist minded, preventing them the ability to focus on external matters.

What I want to know, is how can this "vast majority" become socialist minded, when you do not believe in a dictatorship of the proletariat?

Dictatorship of the Proletariat:

As most Marxists see it, from Trotskyists to Bordigists, the dictatorship of the proletariat is that stage after which the proletariat has seized, smashed, and replaced the state apparatus of the bourgeoisie with it's own, proletarian variant. We understand this to mean the working class has seized political power, and is actively working to defend itself from counter-revolution, is expropriating the bourgeoisie, is organizing the economy and society, as well as assisting outside revolutions. In doing so, the proletarian is abolishing capitalism. That is my understanding, and I believe the understanding of most Marxists.

Some issues do arise, often non-issues, and pose to the Marxists questions that need to be answered. This clarification is necessary, not just internally between us Marxists, but externally as well for those who may be learning.

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is a contradiction, because the system it tries to administer is capitalism and can only function in the interests of the bourgeoisie. The result of the working class administering the system is state capitalism, and failure of the revolution. Is one such issue.

Now, what needs to be cleared by the person purporting this idea is whether the Capitalist Mode of Production is the total definition of capitalism. If it isn't, how can the Dictatorship of the Proletariat be administering the system in totality? What prevents it from abolishing capitalism (which it has already taken a huge chunk out of, just by existing) as opposed to "administering" it? The assumption that the working class will exploit itself through the mechanisms of capitalism, is just absurd, and has no explanation outside of the misconception that a minority, outside of the proletariat, will be those who run the show.

My personal views on the dictatorship of the proletariat, are that it will be established in the form of workers' councils, in which the revolutionary party (not separated from the working class) will play the role of guide and educator in the revolution. The party will be propelled by the masses, but only because the party is a part of the masses.

Can the capitalist and socialist modes of production exist at the same time?

Socialism (Lower/First Phase of Communism):

The issues, although they are more/or less directed at a specific user I will accept anyone's input, are:

How is class abolished? I know this process takes place over a period of time, perhaps would be much shorter today than in Marx's time, throughout the dictatorship of the proletariat. However, If I am opposed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, how is capitalism (highlighting class) abolished in one location, or any even worldwide, instantly?

If you oppose the notion of the dictatorship of the proletariat, as well as opposing the notion that socialism can exist in one country, and supporting that simultaneous worldwide abolition of capitalism is impossible, are you not contradicting yourself?

In this case, how is the socialist mode of production established?

Questions :

You have seen the questions posed, although they are more or less directed at robbo, I would love to see the different views and takes on them.

Some additional I would like to see answered, by everyone, are:

- What form will the DOTP take? What forms can it take? (Councils, syndicalism, etc.)

- What is the mode of production under the DOTP? Is it the capitalist mode constantly being abolished? Or is it the phasing in of the socialist mode and the phasing out of the capitalist?

[The Jay]

This thread stems from the conversation being held in the "Why the Communist Left annoys me" thread. The purpose is clarification, discussion, and relocating to the appropriate place of discussion. Myself, taking the position defending the necessity of a DOTP, and robbo taking the position of opposing it as even a possibility. This entire thread is meant for everyone's input, but I more or less seek answers from robbo.

Revolution:

I, and probably most Marxists, view the revolution as encompassing the class struggle, seizure of power, dictatorship of the proletariat, and abolition of capitalism (therefore the establishment of socialism).

However, others view the revolution in terms that exclude the idea of political power.

For instance, the notion that the proletariat will be a vast majority (worldwide) of class conscious and socialist minded folk, so at it's insurrection of the bourgeoisie capitalism is immediately abolished (without explanation of how). This, I thought, was only held by those who believed in "instant, simultaneous and global revolution (insurrection)". However, as I have seen, it is also a view expressed by those who view the revolution as a "domino effect". The revolution will abolish capitalism in the UK, then it will happen in Germany, then Ireland, then Ukraine, then Mongolia, then Afghanistan, etc. No time frame is given, but the idea is that.

You are absolutely correct in that there is no time-frame. I don't think that such a thing would be predictable by even the luckiest demographer, but it does stand to reason that a revolution in one location would not necessarily sync with the timing of that of another location. It would probably be better if it did but we are not talking about how we would like it to be. We are talking about what we speculate may happen.

For there to be a simultaneous global revolution, there would either have to be a conscious effort to make that happen or some major changes in the proletariat: sweeping revolutionary class consciousness, ect that would enable the proletariat to do such a thing spontaneously.

While I do think that eventually the whole globe will recognize that Socialism is a good idea, a necessary one I do think that it will happen as you said, like a stack of dominos with some being skipped and knocked down later.


The national bourgeoisie will not be an issue, for capitalism (class) is abolished.

The international bourgeoisie will not be an issue, for the vast majority in their nations will be class conscious and socialist minded, preventing them the ability to focus on external matters.

What I want to know, is how can this "vast majority" become socialist minded, when you do not believe in a dictatorship of the proletariat?I think that for a socialist revolution to even happen a majority must consider themselves socialists. I see it as a requisite.


EDIT: I shall post more later!

[Blake's Baby]

...

I think that for a revolution to even happen a majority must consider themselves socialists. I see it as a requisite.

So, the revolution in Russia wasn't a revolution?

[The Jay]

So, the revolution in Russia wasn't a revolution?

Yes, it was a revolution. Do you have any other questions?

[JPSartre12]

There are several points that I would like to make, so I'll break them up individually.


I, and probably most Marxists, view the revolution as encompassing the class struggle, seizure of power, dictatorship of the proletariat, and abolition of capitalism (therefore the establishment of socialism).

However, others view the revolution in terms that exclude the idea of political power.

The seizure of power by the revolting proletariat (and the enactment of a proletarian dictatorship) is the seizure of political power. Revolutions involve a dramatic political change; a proletarian revolution does not "exclude" political power in any way.

The State exists as an organ of class rule, and exists to mediate the economic contradictions that exist between the bourgeoisie and proletariat. When one class exerts its will over the other, there is State of some sort.


What I want to know, is how can this "vast majority" become socialist minded, when you do not believe in a dictatorship of the proletariat?

Well, Leninist theory argues that the vanguard party (that is, the most revolutionary and educated layer of the proletariat, not “a political party that represents the interests of the proletariat and acts in its name”, but rather activist proletarians themselves) is able to educate other proletarians, and that doing so will help raise class consciousness. Lenin argued that the working class will only develop trade union consciousness on its own, and that the vanguard party needs to work to expand it.


The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is a contradiction, because the system it tries to administer is capitalism and can only function in the interests of the bourgeoisie. The result of the working class administering the system is state capitalism, and failure of the revolution.

Again, we need to remember that a State is simply one class pursuing its economic interests at the expense of the other class. A “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie” is merely a State that works in the interests of the bourgeois class, and a “dictatorship of the proletariat” is a State that works in the interest of the proletarian class. A proletarian dictatorship will be ushered in when the proletariat seizes control of the State through revolution.

Discussing state capitalism can become a thorny issue, because it can open the can of worms that is the "what was the mode of production in the Soviet Union" question. Here's what Lenin said about it:


The state capitalism, which is one of the principal aspects of the New Economic Policy, is, under Soviet power, a form of capitalism that is deliberately permitted and restricted by the working class. Our state capitalism differs essentially from the state capitalism in countries that have bourgeois governments in that the state with us is represented not by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat, who has succeeded in winning the full confidence of the peasantry.

State capitalism boils down to the State taking on the role of a "national capitalist" to own property, employment, rent, etc. Lenin argued that Soviet state capitalism was under the control of the proletariat, and the Western state capitalism was under the control of the bourgeoisie.


How is class abolished?

This is a sticking point that can result in tendency wars and sectarian debate. When it comes down to this sort of deep theory, you’ll get multiple conflicting opinions.

When the revolution ushers in a dictatorship of the proletariat, we will still have capitalism. There will still be one class using the State (the political apparatus) to enforce its will on another class. Whether the bourgeoisie or proletariat are in control of the State, there is still capitalism - the class relations of one of them using the State to pursue its interests at the expense of another, and work to minimize economic contradictions, is still there.

When the proletarian State does abolish the bourgeois class (by expropriating their property, seizing control of the means of production, abolishing capital, etc), there will be only one class left: the proletariat. Thus, there can no longer be any State, because there is only one class - there is not one politically exploiting the other. Thus, the relations of production and the relationship that the workers have (with each other as a class, and with the State as the “dictators”) is fundamentally changed because the two classes have been diluted into one class, and the State is no longer a “state”.

Others can explain this better than I can, and if I’ve made a mistake or mis-represented the theory I’ll ask my other comrades to expand on this.


Can the capitalist and socialist modes of production exist at the same time?

I would think that most of us would argue that they cannot.


In this case, how is the socialist mode of production established?

Through revolution. There is no other way to establish socialism.


- What form will the DOTP take? What forms can it take? (Councils, syndicalism, etc.)

There will certainly be parallel institutions and workers councils being established, and they will flourish in the post-DOTP phase of history to the point wherein they hold the majority (or even all!) of the power, but the DOTP is primarily the proletariat asserting its will over the bourgeoisie through seizure of the State.

I would support federations of workers councils and peoples assemblies that cooperate with one another. They can be tiered and function as regional, national, and even international bodies.


What is the mode of production under the DOTP?

As I said, it is capitalist. It is a capitalist State under the control of the proletariat, who are using it in an attempt to abolish the bourgeois class and usher in a class-less society.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is a contradiction, because the system it tries to administer is capitalism and can only function in the interests of the bourgeoisie. The result of the working class administering the system is state capitalism, and failure of the revolution. Is one such issue.

I don't really see this as an issue. Yes, the dictatorship of the proletariat is contradictory, but this is because it is emerging from capitalist society along with all of it's contradictions. The whole purpose of the proletarian dictatorship is to end these contradictions and then, consequently, the contradictions of the state's existence.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Vestiges of Bourgeois society remain under the DotP.
Classlessness(socialism), implies statelessness.

[l'Enfermé]

Well, Leninist theory argues that the vanguard party (that is, the most revolutionary and educated layer of the proletariat, not “a political party that represents the interests of the proletariat and acts in its name”, but rather activist proletarians themselves) is able to educate other proletarians, and that doing so will help raise class consciousness. Lenin argued that the working class will only develop trade union consciousness on its own, and that the vanguard party needs to work to expand it.

No it doesn't. I've never even seen a single mention of this "vanguard party" in any of Lenin's major works. I don't remember any mentions of this controversial "vanguard party" in Trotsky's writings either, and recently I went through all the major ones, like Permanent Revolution, History of the Russian Revolution, The Transitional Program, Terrorism and Communism, The Revolution Betrayed, etc., etc., and I found no mentions of the "vanguard party". Marx2mao.com has this search engine for Stalin's collected works, so I searched for "vanguard party" and there were no results.

I don't know who invented this "vanguard party" bullshit, I guess it was English-speaking Trots after WWII(the English wiki is the only wiki with a "vanguard party" but it certainly wasn't Lenin, or even any of his contemporaries. You don't even see Dutch and German left-coms in the 1920s criticizing this "vanguard party" concept or even mentioning it at all. I don't even remember Mattick or Korsch writing anything about this "vanguard party" in the 50s, 60s or 70s.

[JPSartre12]

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/socialistvoice/partyPR46.html

[Blake's Baby]

...
I think that for a socialist revolution to even happen a majority must consider themselves socialists. I see it as a requisite...

This did not happen in Russia. So either, you do not see a majority as necessry for a revolution, or you do not see what happened in Russia as a revolution. Which is it?

[Let's Get Free]

a lot of left communists on here contend that the first country in the world where a socialist revolution happens, they would have to install a "dictatorship of the proletariat" and continue operating capitalism until such time as socialist parties came to power everywhere in which case they could collectively and simultaneously institute world socialism.

I disagree, and in fact i see this as a disastrous error. It would result inevitably in substitutionism as the "proletarian dictatorship" sought to grapple with the contradictions of trying to run capitalism (which can only be run in the interests of capital ) while at the same time claiming to represent the interests of the workers.

This "dictatorship of the proletariat" will step into the shoes vacated by the old bourgeosie and will itself become a new bourgeosie, a new capitalist class - a state capitalist class. In the name of the proletariat and under the pretense of seeking to protect the interests of the proletariat, they will repress the proletariat and impose its own dictatorship over the proletariat. Since capitalism can only really be run in the interests of capital this type of government will similarly become more and more obviously a bourgeois government indistinguishable from any other. It too will talk ceaselessly about the need to "tighten our belts", to become competitive, to raise productivity and improve profit margins etc etc

[Blake's Baby]

We understand the argument in so far as you've laid it out, but I think what we don't understand is:

1-what choice there is, between the proletariat taking power and not being able to implement socialism in one country, as to whether or not they 'administer capitalism';
2-why the proletariat should allow itself to be deprived of power by itself, which then turns on itself to oppress itself.

It's the flip of the argument we have with the Trotskyists; the Soviet Union was the dictatorship of the party, not the dictatorship of the proletariat. The dictatorship of the party (I'd put DotP here but didn't mean to) only oppresses the working class through the counter-revolution. Why do you think the working class wouldn't resist that? The Soviet Union was a class society; the ruling class oppressed the working class; to think otherwise means the working class oppressed itself. How and why would that happen?

[Art Vandelay]

a lot of left communists on here contend that the first country in the world where a socialist revolution happens, they would have to install a "dictatorship of the proletariat" and continue operating capitalism until such time as socialist parties came to power everywhere in which case they could collectively and simultaneously institute world socialism.

I disagree, and in fact i see this as a disastrous error. It would result inevitably in substitutionism as the "proletarian dictatorship" sought to grapple with the contradictions of trying to run capitalism (which can only be run in the interests of capital ) while at the same time claiming to represent the interests of the workers.

But what is the other option? I keep hearing this critique, but I haven't heard any solutions.

Do you think the revolution will sweep the globe instantaneously?


This "dictatorship of the proletariat" will step into the shoes vacated by the old bourgeosie and will itself become a new bourgeosie, a new capitalist class - a state capitalist class. In the name of the proletariat and under the pretense of seeking to protect the interests of the proletariat, they will repress the proletariat and impose its own dictatorship over the proletariat. Since capitalism can only really be run in the interests of capital this type of government will similarly become more and more obviously a bourgeois government indistinguishable from any other. It too will talk ceaselessly about the need to "tighten our belts", to become competitive, to raise productivity and improve profit margins etc etc

This rehashing of Bakunin is absurd. You can find better critiques then this one and I'd suggest you do so, even if your politics never change.

[Zulu]

This "dictatorship of the proletariat" will step into the shoes vacated by the old bourgeosie and will itself become a new bourgeosie, a new capitalist class - a state capitalist class. In the name of the proletariat and under the pretense of seeking to protect the interests of the proletariat, they will repress the proletariat and impose its own dictatorship over the proletariat. Since capitalism can only really be run in the interests of capital this type of government will similarly become more and more obviously a bourgeois government indistinguishable from any other. It too will talk ceaselessly about the need to "tighten our belts", to become competitive, to raise productivity and improve profit margins etc etc
This rehashing of Bakunin is absurd. You can find better critiques then this one and I'd suggest you do so, even if your politics never change.
What I can't understand about it, is that what even the "non-vanguard" workers have got to lose from it, even if the worst comes to worst about the DotP. So, suppose DotP = new bourgeoisie, then the workers just have to overthrow it again, rinse and repeat until all selfishness gets eliminated from the human gene pool. And if they can't, they'd probably wouldn't have been able to overthrow the old bourgeoisie without the DotP in the first place.

What the history of the 20th century socialist revolutions teaches (those who want to learn, at least) is that Marxism-Leninism and similar "vanguardist" movements can be successful (unlike the "non-vanguardist" ones) at least at overthrowing the old bourgeoisie. But the workers have to remain active and militant, and not become complacent, when the vanguard begins getting corrupted during the initial successes of the socialist construction. Otherwise, it's just the workers own damn fault, that they massively prefer to chill out as soon as they get a little welfare.

[Let's Get Free]

A much better approach i think would be to have a circumscribed or modified version of genuine socialism with a mix of free access and rationing but scrap capitalism and class ownership completely. people here say that they want to continue with capitalism under a so called proletarian dictatorship until all nation states have instituted their "proletarian dictatorships" so that socialism can be introduced simultaneously throughout the world. I say that this is not possible. socialism will start in one place in the world and will grow out from there.

[Art Vandelay]

A much better approach i think would be to have a circumscribed or modified version of genuine socialism with a mix of free access and rationing but scrap capitalism and class ownership completely. people here say that they want to continue with capitalism under a so called proletarian dictatorship until all nation states have instituted their "proletarian dictatorships" so that socialism can be introduced simultaneously throughout the world. I say that this is not possible. socialism will start in one place in the world and will grow out from there.

So you're a supporter of socialism in one country.

[Zulu]

socialism will start in one place in the world and will grow out from there.

That's called "socialism in one country", he-he!

[ind_com]

A much better approach i think would be to have a circumscribed or modified version of genuine socialism with a mix of free access and rationing but scrap capitalism and class ownership completely. people here say that they want to continue with capitalism under a so called proletarian dictatorship until all nation states have instituted their "proletarian dictatorships" so that socialism can be introduced simultaneously throughout the world. I say that this is not possible. socialism will start in one place in the world and will grow out from there.

I think we have a closet Stalinist here. :D

[Let's Get Free]

"Socialism in one country" implies the existence of a state, and there would be none in my scenario. I just dont see any road to socialism via a "proletarian dictatorship" waiting patiently for the rest of the world to form their own proletarian dictatorships, then agreeing to implement socialism harmoniously as one.

I would say that any transitional state, no matter how revolutionary its rhetoric, would be self perpetuating. It would seek to preserve the very material conditions it had been created to remove. For this state to "whither away" or promote its own dissolution, would require its leaders to be people of superhuman moral qualities. When they decide that it is finally "time" to implement socialism, will the proletarian dictatorship effect a revolution against itself? In reality, the DOTP will be yet another labor/social democratic government.

But for one thing, if workers in one part of the world are sufficiently strong to be in a position to get rid of capitalism then it is more than likely that the workers eslewhere will not be that far behind. Indeed, the global socialist movement is likely to work proactively to ensure that the changeover to a global socialist society occurs within a short amount of time as possible.

But we can draw blueprints of how to reach a future socialist society, but its all hypothetical, as we may not ever even reach that point.

[ind_com]

But we can draw blueprints of how to reach a future socialist society, but its all hypothetical, as we may not ever even reach that point.

So, what is your blueprint like? What do you have in mind for workers living under extremely dictatorial and trigger-happy states?

[Camaradus]

Comrades and Friends…
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(expropriation of capital and means of production from the propertied classes); 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", 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 the day, comrades and friends. Onward toward the extension of a comradely hand to your fellow propertyless worker and human being. Tis honor in such an act. This much at least, we must find to be unanimously irrefutable should we ever aspire to attain our mutual revolutionary ends.
Marx's own, most esteemed comrade; would seem to have concurred...
"An ounce of action is worth more than a ton of theory" -Engels

[Manic Impressive]

So, the revolution in Russia wasn't a revolution?
It was a revolution the same way the french was a revolution. A change from feudal relations towards capitalist relations.

[Let's Get Free]

So, the revolution in Russia wasn't a revolution?

It was, but not a socialist one. It was a popular revolution with some socialistic tendencies (although those socialistic tendencies were later destroyed)

[Zulu]

So, what is your blueprint like? What do you have in mind for workers living under extremely dictatorial and trigger-happy states?

Yeah, I bet our anarcho-stalinist friend here will wake up one morning to a bitter surprize when the ol' true stalinists begin invading his first socialist country with their private red armies ;)))

[robbo203]

"Socialism in one country" implies the existence of a state, and there would be none in my scenario. I just dont see any road to socialism via a "proletarian dictatorship" waiting patiently for the rest of the world to form their own proletarian dictatorships, then agreeing to implement socialism harmoniously as one.

I would say that any transitional state, no matter how revolutionary its rhetoric, would be self perpetuating. It would seek to preserve the very material conditions it had been created to remove. For this state to "whither away" or promote its own dissolution, would require its leaders to be people of superhuman moral qualities. When they decide that it is finally "time" to implement socialism, will the proletarian dictatorship effect a revolution against itself? In reality, the DOTP will be yet another labor/social democratic government.

But for one thing, if workers in one part of the world are sufficiently strong to be in a position to get rid of capitalism then it is more than likely that the workers eslewhere will not be that far behind. Indeed, the global socialist movement is likely to work proactively to ensure that the changeover to a global socialist society occurs within a short amount of time as possible.

But we can draw blueprints of how to reach a future socialist society, but its all hypothetical, as we may not ever even reach that point.


I agree with this fully. It is in fact the most sensible way to go. Once you start getting into the murky business of setting up so called proletarian dictorships and operating a system of state capitalism, that can only ever operate in the interests of capital, you are stuffed. The revolutionary movement towards socialism will falter and die. Substitutionism will inevitably follow and, with it, the emergence of a new ruling class : the state capitalist class. There is no road to socialism via state capitalism. Period.

For those critics of the domino model of how socialism would establish itself globally and who continue perversely to misrepresent this as amounting to "socialism in one country" - how could it be when real socialism denotes the absence of classes and therefore a state, when these things are implicit in the very concept of "socialism in one country" itself? - there is perhaps a compromise solution that would satisfy their insistence on the need for an instananeous worldwide socialist revolution that changes the economic basis of society across the world from capitalism to socialism in one go. It would not be my first choice but it is unquestionably vastly superior to the dead end road of adopting state capitalism as a transitional strategy

Essentially it is this. Socialism requires that a majority of the working class want and understand socialism., I dont think anyone can argue against that. This is the absolute preconditon for the estabhlment of socialism: that workers generally must know what it means and want it.

If that is the case - and it is - then perhaps one way round the supposed problem of the domino model of socialist revolution is to wait until there is a clear socialist majority everywhere (or almost everywhere) - before capturing power to initiate the revolutionary changeover to socialism. This overcomes the problem of uneven spatial growth within the world socialist movement which is the pretext on which the advocates of proletarian dictatship base that advocacy - even if they cannot see that such an approach will simply destroy the revolutionary impulse towards socialism.
However, this compromise solution has the merit of getting round their objections to the domino model of socialist revolution. They cannot keep offering the same old mantra that capitalism is a global system and you cannot have parts of the world that are socialist and parts of the world that are capitalist

In summary , what this means is that we do not need then to concern ourselves with the problem of differential growth rates within the world socialist movement. If, in one part of the world, an absolute majority of conscious socialists has been attained while, in another, socialists are still only a minority, albeit most likely, a significant minority, then socialists in the former will simply desist from seizing power - democratically capturing the state to abolish capitalism - until such time as socialists in the latter have become a majority. This they will do on the understanding that socialism has to be a world system and the revolutuonary changeover to such a society has to be globally coordinated

I would call this "revolutionay abstentionism" or something like that, in contrast to the domino model. my first choice. . It has its drawbacks but it is unquestionably superior to the dead end state-capitalist-proletarian-dictatorship model of how to achieve a socialist revolution

[Blake's Baby]

It was a revolution the same way the french was a revolution. A change from feudal relations towards capitalist relations.

No it wasn't, Russia was a capitalist state already. It was the 5th biggest economy in the world in 1913, it had a proletariat of several million by the time of the revolution. Capitalist development had been continuing apace since the 1880s (actually, since 1700, but particularly since the 1880s).

If you believe that a capitalist revolution against feudalism was even possible then that would mean that capitalism wasn't developed enough internationally for socialism to be a real possibility. Capitalism had fulfilled its historic task of concentrating capital, developing the proletariat and creating the world market by the beginning of the 20th century; that means that there could no more revolutions against feudalism, because capitalism was no longer a progeressive system.

The foundation of the SPGB in 1904 was predicated on the notion that the 'objective factors' were sufficient for the establishment of socialist society, that capitalism had fulfilled its historic tasks. A capitalist revolution in Russia would imply that the foundation of your own party was a mistake.

[l'Enfermé]

It was a revolution the same way the french was a revolution. A change from feudal relations towards capitalist relations.
The Russian bourgeoisie won for itself all the legal rights it wanted even before 1917, and anyway, the concept of "bourgeois revolutions" was completely discredited after the revolutions of 1848, which Marx and Engels expected to become another Great French Revolution in Germany. The whole "bourgeois revolution" concept relies on the bourgeoisie being a progressive class, which after 1794, was no longer true.

Serfdom, by the way, was abolished in 1861. Landlord-ism and tens of millions of peasants =/= feudalism. Feudal relations for the most part no longer existed in 1917.

[Blake's Baby]

I thought you didn't understand the notion of 'decadent' capitalism, l'Enferme? You've just explained it pretty well, except I think you're dating the end of the progressive bourgeoisie too early. I think Marx and Engels thought that the bourgeoisie in Germany was incapable of playing a progressive role in 1848, but not that there was no progressive capitalism at all.

[robbo203]

No it wasn't, Russia was a capitalist state already. It was the 5th biggest economy in the world in 1913, it had a proletariat of several million by the time of the revolution. Capitalist development had been continuing apace since the 1880s (actually, since 1700, but particularly since the 1880s).

If you believe that a capitalist revolution against feudalism was even possible then that would mean that capitalism wasn't developed enough internationally for socialism to be a real possibility. Capitalism had fulfilled its historic task of concentrating capital, developing the proletariat and creating the world market by the beginning of the 20th century; that means that there could no more revolutions against feudalism, because capitalism was no longer a progeressive system.

The foundation of the SPGB in 1904 was predicated on the notion that the 'objective factors' were sufficient for the establishment of socialist society, that capitalism had fulfilled its historic tasks. A capitalist revolution in Russia would imply that the foundation of your own party was a mistake.



This is simplistic. There was certainly capitalism in pre-revolutionary Russia, essentially concentrated in the big cities and exceptionally dependent on foreign capital, but in a country that consisted overwhelmingly of peasants, pre capitalist relationships also existed. The working class, the overwhelming numerical majority in a developed capitalist economy amounted to a tiny 10% at most in pre-revolutionary Russia - hardly a characteristic of a fully emerged "capitalist state"

Lenin had something to say about this in his "The Essence of “The Agrarian Problem in Russia” published in 1912

Undoubtedly, a system of agriculture just as capitalist has already become firmly established and is steadily developing in Russia. It is in this direction that both landlord and peasant farming is developing. But purely capitalist relations in our country are still overshadowed to a tremendous extent by feudal relations. The distinctive character of the Russian agrarian problem lies in the struggle which the mass of the population, above all of the peasantry as a whole, are waging against these relations. In the West this kind of “problem” existed everywhere in olden days, but it was solved there long ago. In Russia, its solution has been delayed—the problem was not solved by the agrarian “Reform” of 1861, nor can it be solved under present conditions by the Stolypin agrarian policy. (my emphasis)

Engels, if I recall correctly, said something along the lines in a letter to a Russian correspondent that for all he knew Russia was "approaching its 1789". I think Engels prognosis was essentially correct

The Bolshevik revolution was a capitalist revolution that entrenched and consolidated capitalism in its state capitalist form by sweeping away residual pre capitalist aspects that blocked the unfettered development of capitalist relations of production. The Bolsheviks accomplished what a weak indigenous Russian bourgeosie could not in that respect.

That does not mean there was no capitalism before the revolution and nor should it be interpreted in this way

[RedMaterialist]

The Bolshevik revolution was a capitalist revolution...

That would be a surprise to Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, et al.

[Blake's Baby]

This is simplistic...

Britain, Spain, Sweden still have monarchies. Do we need 'capitalist revolutions' too Robbo? Scotland actually has a real fuedal class of absentee landlords. Shall we joing the liberal bourgeoisie in overthrowing them?

Really, at times I begin to see Rafiq's point. This isn't the 17th century any more, it's not even the 19th. Capitalism has been an obsolete social system since before the First World War - as the SPGB, a party you claim to support, recognised at the time. There are no more 'capitalist revolutions', no matter what Engels might have thought in 1880, or Lenin in 1912. Even Lenin can be wrong, you know.

[Zulu]

This is the absolute preconditon for the estabhlment of socialism: that workers generally must know what it means and want it.

This is laughable, coming from you. You have yet to demonstrate that you have a slightest idea of "what it means" yourself. How do those beans get from the bean-land to supermarket, if not by magic, in your "socialism"?





simply desist from seizing power

And this is just brilliant. Let 'em capitalists run the show till at least 4 billion workers smarten up enough to learn what socialism is, despite those capitalists actively denying them the opportunity to learn pretty much anything. Let me infer that this actually means: let' em imperialists run the show FOREVER.

Now tell us something. How much do you get paid per post?

[robbo203]

Britain, Spain, Sweden still have monarchies. Do we need 'capitalist revolutions' too Robbo? Scotland actually has a real fuedal class of absentee landlords. Shall we joing the liberal bourgeoisie in overthrowing them?

Really, at times I begin to see Rafiq's point. This isn't the 17th century any more, it's not even the 19th. Capitalism has been an obsolete social system since before the First World War - as the SPGB, a party you claim to support, recognised at the time. There are no more 'capitalist revolutions', no matter what Engels might have thought in 1880, or Lenin in 1912. Even Lenin can be wrong, you know.

Come off it. There is a slight difference - dont you think? - between contemporary capitalist Britain with the fig leaf of a constitutional monarchy in the shape of Betty and Phil - both capitalists in their own right - and pre-revolutionary Russia in which only 10% of the population could be considered working class and the vast majority were peasants Get things in perspective will you?

Yes capitalism as a social sysem was obsolete by the beginning of the 20th century. But as you keep on saying, though I seem to have to remind you, capitalism is a world system . Which means you have to look at the possibility of establishing socialism from a global perspective. This does not however preclude the fact that some parts of the world at the beginning of the 20th century were not yet fully capitalist - like pre-Revolutionary Russia

I am not saying that a revolution was needed in Russia to establish capitalism but rather to consolidate capitalism and remove those residual pre capitalist obstacles in the path of capitalist development . There is a difference you know. From that point of view the Bolshevik revolution was the completion of the unfinished business of capitalist revolution.

[Red Enemy]

Come off it. There is a slight difference - dont you think? - between contemporary capitalist Britain with the fig leaf of a constitutional monarchy in the shape of Betty and Phil - both capitalists in their own right - and pre-revolutionary Russia in which only 10% of the population could be considered working class and the vast majority were peasants Get things in perspective will you? What your missing is that, contrary to you/gladiator and the Stalinists, Lenin knew that Russia was doomed if the world revolution failed:

"It is an absolute truth that without a German revolution we are doomed..."

Lenin was fully aware of the underdeveloped nature of Russian Capital, and thus when he spoke of "State Capitalism" it was an advance. That, he speaks of "state capitalism", as you ignore, from the prospect of a dictatorship of the proletariat which will be saved by the world revolution.

You are absolutely right when you say State Capitalism was no way to achieve socialism. Lenin and the Bolsheviks would agree.


Yes capitalism as a social sysem was obsolete by the beginning of the 20th century. But as you keep on saying, though I seem to have to remind you, capitalism is a world system . Which means you have to look at the possibility of establishing socialism from a global perspective. This does not however preclude the fact that some parts of the world at the beginning of the 20th century were not yet fully capitalist - like pre-Revolutionary RussiaWhich, as I said, the revolutionaries KNEW they had to rely on the rest of the world (the advanced capitalist nations of Germany, the UK, USA, etc.) to pull them out of where they were.


I am not saying that a revolution was needed in Russia to establish capitalism but rather to consolidate capitalism and remove those residual pre capitalist obstacles in the path of capitalist development . There is a difference you know. From that point of view the Bolshevik revolution was the completion of the unfinished business of capitalist revolution.What you do get somewhat right is what occurred, what you get wrong is saying it was the intent of the Bolsheviks and Lenin for it to occur.

[robbo203]

This is laughable, coming from you. You have yet to demonstrate that you have a slightest idea of "what it means" yourself. How do those beans get from the bean-land to supermarket, if not by magic, in your "socialism"?

Our laugh-a-minute Zulu (why "Zulu" incidentally? Im intrigued, speaking as an emigre from South Africa myself) never fails to live up to his reputation for wacky, over-the-top and slightly unhinged commentry. I dont have the "slightest idea" of what socialism means, huh? Well how about this:

Socialism is a marketless, moneyless , wageless system of society in whch the means of production are owned in common and democratically controlled and where the principle from each according to ability to each according to need prevails

There now. Satisfied? I think you will find this conforms to the Marxian definition of socialism (aka communism) rather nicely.

As for your question about how you get those beans to the store when the store runs out of tins of baked beans - easey peasey! The store contacts the supplier via a super duper computer network , the manufacturer of baked beans or more likely the depot stocking them. They then load it into a big thing called a TRUCK- you know, you might have seen one: its got four wheels and is driven by these rather podgy chain-smoking blokes with a penchant for country western music called "TRUCKDRIVERS" who drive it along a strip of tarmac called a ROAD until they reach their destination and offload their cargo of backed beans at the store. Couldnt be simpler.


There now . You can't possibly say you dont learn something new here on Revleft on every visit that will brighten up your whole existence and fill it with wonderful meaning and significance




And this is just brilliant. Let 'em capitalists run the show till at least 4 billion workers smarten up enough to learn what socialism is, despite those capitalists actively denying them the opportunity to learn pretty much anything. Let me infer that this actually means: let' em imperialists run the show FOREVER.

Now tell us something. How much do you get paid per post?

Er you have a slight problem here in that you have just shot yourself in the foot and for the umpteenth time, I might add. If you claim to be a socialist (which I personally doubt) how the hell did you come to be a socialist in a society run by the capitalists as you claim?. What so special about you, or me, or anyone else here, for that matter, that we are somehow immune to capitalist brainwashing but the great majority are not? This is the problem with vanguardists - their condescending arrogance and self belief that they are somehow the chosen ones who can look down from a great height upon the great unwashed below


In any case since we live in a global capitalist society how then can ANY approach whatsoever to achieving socialism suceed if what you say is right. We might as well just pack up now and forget about socialism altogether. As a materialist I would say that it is the material conditions - the antagonisms and contradictions arising out of class struggle - that play a desivie role in the development of socialist ideas notwithstanding the intentions asnd wishes of the capitalist class.

Despite appearances, the capitalists do NOT actually control their system in that sense which is literally uncontrollable and it needs to be pointed out again and again that the capitalists are not a monolithic power bloc but are constantly at odds with each other. What happens is that the system creates its own gravediggers every day and more so now than ever before as a crisis of legitimacy is becoming increasingly evident everywhere we turn. But the left , weighed down with its baggage of obsolete conservative and arcane ideas of proletarian dictatorships vanguardist parties and Leninist style state capitalism is in absolutely no position to take advantage of what is happening today In theory it should by rights be a massive movement on the rise gaining clout and influence everywhere but instead it has become a shriveled rump of tiny sectarian groups, each sniping at each other and ignored by the mass of workers for the political irrelevance it has become. A second division football club probably packs more poeple into its stadium than the combined forces of the so called revolutionary Left

Anyway, thats my take on the matter as a materialist; you as a rank dealist with a fondness for conspiracy theory might, of course, wish to beg to differ. Next I guess you will be telling us that we are all in thrall to the lizard people who, as we speak, are secretly manufacturing android lookalikes to replace us and so dispense with an unruly proletariat thinking subversive thoughts of socialism :rolleyes:

[robbo203]

What your missing is that, contrary to you/gladiator and the Stalinists, Lenin knew that Russia was doomed if the world revolution failed:

"It is an absolute truth that without a German revolution we are doomed..."

I am aware of this view of Lenin which was also expressed by Trotsky. The problem is that it conceals a delusion. It implies that conditions internally within Russia itself were ripe for a socialist revolution but that that only failed to happen because of the failure of the world revolution externally to happen. I emphatically reject this implication. Quite simply, internal conditions inside Russia were nowhere near ripe for a socialist revolution. In particular there simply was no mass mandate for revolutionary socialism - aka the abolition of the wages system - and any who thinks otherwise is completely and utterly deluding themselves. High levels of working class militancy (later crushed and subdued by the Bolsheviks ) though a positive and welcome development in itself , is NOT tantamount to a revolutionary socialist outlook



Lenin was fully aware of the underdeveloped nature of Russian Capital, and thus when he spoke of "State Capitalism" it was an advance. That, he speaks of "state capitalism", as you ignore, from the prospect of a dictatorship of the proletariat which will be saved by the world revolution.


Well you should tell that to Blakes Baby who seems to hold this naive view that pre Revolutionary Russia was some kind of fully developed capitalist state on a par with other fully developed capitalist states. It wasnt. Mere industrial indices such as aggregate output of pig iron or whatever is not much help here since what we need to be looking at is the social structure or class make up of the society in question rather than raw production figures per se



You are absolutely right when you say State Capitalism was no way to achieve socialism. Lenin and the Bolsheviks would agree.



No I think you are quite mistaken here. Lenin quite clearly did think state capitalism was the way to go to achieve socialism. See for example this statement:


And this not only because the horrors of the war give rise to proletarian revolt—no revolt can bring about socialism unless the economic conditions for socialism are ripe—but because state-monopoly capitalism is a complete material preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of history between which and the rung called socialism there are no intermediate rungs. (The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/11.htm)

[Blake's Baby]

I am aware of this view of Lenin which was also expressed by Trotsky. The problem is that it conceals a delusion. It implies that conditions internally within Russia itself were ripe for a socialist revolution but that that only failed to happen because of the failure of the world revolution externally to happen. I emphatically reject this implication. Quite simply, internal conditions inside Russia were nowhere near ripe for a socialist revolution. In particular there simply was no mass mandate for revolutionary socialism - aka the abolition of the wages system - and any who thinks otherwise is completely and utterly deluding themselves. High levels of working class militancy (later crushed and subdued by the Bolsheviks ) though a positive and welcome development in itself , is NOT tantamount to a revolutionary socialist outlook



Well you should tell that to Blakes Baby who seems to hold this naive view that pre Revolutionary Russia was some kind of fully developed capitalist state on a par with other fully developed capitalist states. It wasnt. Mere industrial indices such as aggregate output of pig iron or whatever is not much help here since what we need to be looking at is the social structure or class make up of the society in question rather than raw production figures per se




No I think you are quite mistaken here. Lenin quite clearly did think state capitalism was the way to go to achieve socialism. See for example this statement:


And this not only because the horrors of the war give rise to proletarian revolt—no revolt can bring about socialism unless the economic conditions for socialism are ripe—but because state-monopoly capitalism is a complete material preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of history between which and the rung called socialism there are no intermediate rungs. (The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/11.htm)

'Internal conditions' are never 'ripe for socialism'. 'Internal conditions' in Britain or America or Germany of China even now are not 'ripe for socialism'. Do you know why Robbo? It's because you can't have socialism in one country. Only worldwide conditions can be 'ripe for socialism' (that is, the 'objective conditions' can be ripe, as Trotsky put it) - and they have been for more than 100 years, as the SPGB, Trotsky, Lenin, the Left Comms and Rosa Luxemburg all agreed back between 1904-1920.

No-one is claiming that Russia in 1913 was as developed as, say, Germany (that also hadn't had a bourgeois revolution at that point, why have you not claimed it needed one?) or the USA (which also had a massive peasantry in the early 20th century, but you don't seem to think it needed a bourgeois revolution either for some reason). But, world capitalism had developed world production and the international proletariat to the point that socialism - a world system - was possible by the early 20th century. Do you disagree?

[Zulu]

why "Zulu" incidentally?

Because Alfa-Bravo-Charlie-Delta-...-Yankee-Zulu. Copy?





via a super duper computer network...

TRUCK...

TRUCKDRIVERS...

ROAD...


Who maintains the computer network, supplies trucks, fuels them and mans them with truckdrivers, and repairs the road? Especially since everybody can freely just come up to a supermarket, take as much beans as they want and call it a day?






how then can ANY approach whatsoever to achieving socialism suceed if what you say is right.

Some can, and not necessarily (and even not very likely) workers themselves. It's been long since proven that the workers themselves can't grow their conscience past trade-unionism en masse. At any given time only a handful of them can become versed enough in political economy to see the pointlessness of mere trade-unionism. That's why this handful must try and organize themselves as a vanguard party, to agitate and mobilize the rest of the working class when the next crisis hits.




We might as well just pack up now and forget about socialism altogether.

You definitely should. But the fact is, like it or not, Marxism-Leninism works, it just needs to be updated.





But the left , weighed down with its baggage of obsolete conservative and arcane ideas of proletarian dictatorships vanguardist parties and Leninist style state capitalism is in absolutely no position to take advantage of what is happening today
That's precisely because most of "the left" indulge in all sorts of wishful thinking, such as that which you propagate here, and are not ready to pick up the "baggage" of Leninism.





Next I guess you will be telling us that we are all in thrall to the lizard people who, as we speak, are secretly manufacturing android lookalikes to replace us and so dispense with an unruly proletariat thinking subversive thoughts of socialism
Oh sure, non-lizard provocateurs are something completely unheard of, when it comes to overthrowing the bourgeoisie.

[Red Enemy]

I am aware of this view of Lenin which was also expressed by Trotsky. The problem is that it conceals a delusion. It implies that conditions internally within Russia itself were ripe for a socialist revolution but that that only failed to happen because of the failure of the world revolution externally to happen. I emphatically reject this implication. Quite simply, internal conditions inside Russia were nowhere near ripe for a socialist revolution. In particular there simply was no mass mandate for revolutionary socialism - aka the abolition of the wages system - and any who thinks otherwise is completely and utterly deluding themselves. High levels of working class militancy (later crushed and subdued by the Bolsheviks ) though a positive and welcome development in itself , is NOT tantamount to a revolutionary socialist outlookI never said they were ripe for socialism, I'm unsure who does. Also, I do not claim that the "vast masses" were in support of socialism, as I believe this can only occur under the context of a DOTP.

It's as if everything that is posed against you just goes over your head, and you just get into the rhythm of repeating yourself to save face.


Well you should tell that to Blakes Baby who seems to hold this naive view that pre Revolutionary Russia was some kind of fully developed capitalist state on a par with other fully developed capitalist states.I'm not discussing that with Blake's Baby, this is about your views and mine.


No I think you are quite mistaken here. Lenin quite clearly did think state capitalism was the way to go to achieve socialism. See for example this statement:


And this not only because the horrors of the war give rise to proletarian revolt—no revolt can bring about socialism unless the economic conditions for socialism are ripe—but because state-monopoly capitalism is a complete material preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of history between which and the rung called socialism there are no intermediate rungs. (The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/11.htm)Lenin, form the same article:

"You will find that, given a really revolutionary-democratic state, state-monopoly capitalism inevitably and unavoidably implies a step, and more than one step, towards socialism!"

Yes, in Russia, and in many places it would have been a STEP, or "more than one step", toward socialism. Just as capitalism rising out of feudalism can be considered a step toward socialism.

Lenin continues to say:

"For if a huge capitalist undertaking becomes a monopoly, it means that it serves the whole nation. If it has become a state monopoly, it means that the state (i.e., the armed organisation of the population, the workers and peasants above all, provided there is revolutionary democracy) directs the whole undertaking. In whose interest? Either in the interest of the landowners and capitalists, in which case we have not a revolutionary-democratic, but a reactionary-bureaucratic state, an imperialist republic. Or in the interest of revolutionary democracy—and then it is a step towards socialism."

It helps to actually read, and not just nit pick quotes out of context.

[Red Enemy]

Some can, and not necessarily (and even not very likely) workers themselves. It's been long since proven that the workers themselves can't grow their conscience past trade-unionism en masse. Just to make this very clear:

Lenin reneged on what he said about trade-union consciousness, explaining it as an over-exaggerated attack on economism.

[robbo203]

'Internal conditions' are never 'ripe for socialism'. 'Internal conditions' in Britain or America or Germany of China even now are not 'ripe for socialism'. Do you know why Robbo? It's because you can't have socialism in one country. Only worldwide conditions can be 'ripe for socialism' (that is, the 'objective conditions' can be ripe, as Trotsky put it) - and they have been for more than 100 years, as the SPGB, Trotsky, Lenin, the Left Comms and Rosa Luxemburg all agreed back between 1904-1920.

This is not the point I was getting at. The point was that the implication of Lenin's remark was that the internal conditions were ripe in Russia for a socialist revolution whether or not externally at a global level these conditions were ripe. And the simple fact is that they were not. There was no mass mandate for socialism inside Russia but Lenin's remark would lead us to believe that there was. That is what i was criticising



No-one is claiming that Russia in 1913 was as developed as, say, Germany (that also hadn't had a bourgeois revolution at that point, why have you not claimed it needed one?) or the USA (which also had a massive peasantry in the early 20th century, but you don't seem to think it needed a bourgeois revolution either for some reason). But, world capitalism had developed world production and the international proletariat to the point that socialism - a world system - was possible by the early 20th century. Do you disagree?

Of course I agree that world capitalism had by then developed world production and an international proletariat to the point that socialism was possible. This is yet another reason why all talk of the so called dictatorship of the proletariat and the need for a state capitalist transitional strategy is absolute nonsense and is based on a totally obsolete worldview that has no relevance whatsoever to a modern revolutionary socialist movement

[Blake's Baby]

This is not the point I was getting at. The point was that the implication of Lenin's remark was that the internal conditions were ripe in Russia for a socialist revolution whether or not externally at a global level these conditions were ripe. And the simple fact is that they were not. There was no mass mandate for socialism inside Russia but Lenin's remark would lead us to believe that there was. That is what i was criticising...

No, becasue Lenin believed that the global conditions were right, in 'internal conditions' are not important.

Do you know why? It's because you can't have socialism in one country.



...Of course I agree that world capitalism had by then developed world production and an international proletariat to the point that socialism was possible. This is yet another reason why all talk of the so called dictatorship of the proletariat and the need for a state capitalist transitional strategy is absolute nonsense and is based on a totally obsolete worldview that has no relevance whatsoever to a modern revolutionary socialist movement

No, it's necessary for the whole world to have a political revolution before the transition to socialist society.

Do you know why? It's because you can't have socialism in one country.

[subcp]

Some can, and not necessarily (and even not very likely) workers themselves. It's been long since proven that the workers themselves can't grow their conscience past trade-unionism en masse. At any given time only a handful of them can become versed enough in political economy to see the pointlessness of mere trade-unionism. That's why this handful must try and organize themselves as a vanguard party, to agitate and mobilize the rest of the working class when the next crisis hits.

I don't agree with the 'trade union consciousness' premise; or thinking non-worker specialists will be the ones to 'make communism'. The biggest revolutionary crisis of capitalism was during that 1917-1927 era; the most advanced sections of the international working-class (workers in Kronstadt, Petrograd, Berlin, Budapest, Shanghai, etc.) were seizing the means of production, engaging in general and mass strikes, forming the organs of workers power (factory committee's, general and mass assemblies, above all the workers councils)- all of these were formed by workers themselves, not the political avant garde. This was true again during the upheaval of 1968-1972, and again recently since the latest crisis- though not to the same depth as the earlier revolutionary period, it developed along similar lines- workers doing these things on their own initiative, following the most advanced sections who develop their tactics and forms and content over time through struggle: this is especially lucid in the case right now in Mahalla in Egypt, Honda workers in China, etc.

Why the vanguard is necessary is to stop things like the German November Revolution from happening again; first, as the Situationists put it, "You must disarm Noske before he can kill you", and second, so workers do not hand power back to the bourgeoisie when faced with the contradiction that is proletarian ownership of the means of production ('all power to the councils of workers deputies. First order of business, elect a new National Assembly and dissolve the soviets'). We have to be there to fight for the communist program, in the assemblies, the committees, the councils. We are a natural development of the working-class in its struggles with capital; that a minority would become conscious of the proletariats historic mission to abolish class society and of the communist program. Our consciousness is a by-product of the struggles between the classes. In the process of its revolution the working-class becomes capable of turning its communist minority into a communist majority in the movement to abolish capitalism and establish communism.

The Kautsky/Lenin formulation seems to have become more mechanical over time- someone elsewhere was arguing that it had different content at the time they were alive. That formulation gives the impression that the vanguard is not a function of the class struggle and a product thereof, with a specific task to perform in the communist project, but is instead a group of morally superior and exceptional individuals, 'natural leaders', an intelligenstia elite above the working-class.

[Hit The North]

In summary , what this means is that we do not need then to concern ourselves with the problem of differential growth rates within the world socialist movement. If, in one part of the world, an absolute majority of conscious socialists has been attained while, in another, socialists are still only a minority, albeit most likely, a significant minority, then socialists in the former will simply desist from seizing power - democratically capturing the state to abolish capitalism - until such time as socialists in the latter have become a majority. This they will do on the understanding that socialism has to be a world system and the revolutuonary changeover to such a society has to be globally coordinated

I would call this "revolutionay abstentionism" or something like that, in contrast to the domino model. my first choice. . It has its drawbacks but it is unquestionably superior to the dead end state-capitalist-proletarian-dictatorship model of how to achieve a socialist revolution

Good luck calling for "revolutionary abstentionism" in the midst of a revolution - hopefully it would just visit ridicule upon you and nothing worse.

But this idea really does point out the naivety at the centre of your political view. Do you really think that revolution can be plotted in such a way, according to some far-sighted and rational plan as the tranquil hive mind of the proletariat assesses the international situation before it acts? And how will the majority revolutionary forces in nation A assess whether the majority of the working class in nation B are suitably "socialist"? Does it conduct a survey?

Tell me, while the 80% majority of socialists in nation A wait for the more slow-witted workers of nation B to catch up, what should they do - allow the bourgeoisie a few more years grace? I mean, is capitalism not in crisis? Is its revolutionary overthrow not an economic and social imperative at this point? And while we are sitting on our hands (not even daring to "democratically captur[e] the state to abolish capitalism"!), what is the bourgeoisie of nation A and nation B doing if not everything in their power to retain their disgusting system? How do you suggest the politically disarmed revolution defend itself against the "abstained revolution" being drowned in blood? Moreover, how will the revolutionary abstainers (the latter day Mensheviks?) justify themselves when the blood does flow?

This is quite the most silly thing I've seen posted by a long-standing poster on this forum in a long time.

[robbo203]

I never said they were ripe for socialism, I'm unsure who does. Also, I do not claim that the "vast masses" were in support of socialism, as I believe this can only occur under the context of a DOTP.

It's as if everything that is posed against you just goes over your head, and you just get into the rhythm of repeating yourself to save face.

But hold on here - I never said you said that!. You are a fine one to say "It's as if everything that is posed against you just goes over your head". Please dont atrribute to me something that I never said. I was referring to the inference that could be drawn from what Lenin said, not you.

Turning now to what you said, you are now saying that mass socialist consciousness can only develop under the DOTP. So the DOTP will be set up according to you, prior to the apearance of mass socialist consciousness and will somehow enable that consciousness to emerge.

I take the totally opposite view . Since you have capitalism under the DOTP the DOTP will have to operate capitalism in the only way in which it can be operated which is the interest of capital, The socialist idealism that may once have inspired the vanguard to establish a DOTP will pretty soon wither and die as the exigencies of running capitalism take hold



Lenin, form the same article:

"You will find that, given a really revolutionary-democratic state, state-monopoly capitalism inevitably and unavoidably implies a step, and more than one step, towards socialism!"

Yes, in Russia, and in many places it would have been a STEP, or "more than one step", toward socialism. Just as capitalism rising out of feudalism can be considered a step toward socialism.

Lenin continues to say:

"For if a huge capitalist undertaking becomes a monopoly, it means that it serves the whole nation. If it has become a state monopoly, it means that the state (i.e., the armed organisation of the population, the workers and peasants above all, provided there is revolutionary democracy) directs the whole undertaking. In whose interest? Either in the interest of the landowners and capitalists, in which case we have not a revolutionary-democratic, but a reactionary-bureaucratic state, an imperialist republic. Or in the interest of revolutionary democracy—and then it is a step towards socialism."

It helps to actually read, and not just nit pick quotes out of context.

I dont get this last bit. You said in the post I responded to

"You are absolutely right when you say State Capitalism was no way to achieve socialism. Lenin and the Bolsheviks would agree."

I said no this is not the case and that Lenin did think state capitalism was the way to achieve socialism

Now you are confirming that I was right in saying this in the first place and yet you accuse me of nitpicking! Make up your mind

[Red Enemy]

But hold on here - I never said you said that!. You are a fine one to say "It's as if everything that is posed against you just goes over your head". Please dont atrribute to me something that I never said. I was referring to the inference that could be drawn from what Lenin said, not you.What you said "infers" that those who suggest the failure of world revolution as the downfall of the Russian revolution, also believe that Russia was ripe for socialism.

To clarify, it was not. However, the view expressed by myself would be that if the advanced capitalist nations fell to proletariat revolution, then the nature of Russian capitalism would be pushed to the that point where it is ready for socialism very quickly.


Turning now to what you said, you are now saying that mass socialist consciousness can only develop under the DOTP. So the DOTP will be set up according to you, prior to the appearance of mass socialist consciousness and will somehow enable that consciousness to emerge.I suggest a large active minority with passive support, or an active majority. Not necessarily socialist minded, but class conscious. The "vast majority" (in this I see the totality of the proletariat - not just 75%, 7%, or 99%) of socialist mindedness will be achieved when the ruling class is the proletariat. Marx explained that the prevailing ideas are those of the ruling class, hence the fact that there will be reactionary and counter-revolutionary proletariat.

Remember, the struggle, of which the DOTP is a part of, educates the proletariat. The "vanguard" is a good guide, and help, but is secondary.


I take the totally opposite view. Since you have capitalism under the DOTP the DOTP will have to operate capitalism in the only way in which it can be operated which is the interest of capital, The socialist idealism that may once have inspired the vanguard to establish a DOTP will pretty soon wither and die as the exigencies of running capitalism take holdSo, the bourgeoisie, who have been disposed of political/state power, will continue to exploit the proletariat...even though they physically can't?

Or wait, you mean the new "Proletariat state" will do that for them!

Well, this is stemming from your incorrect view of the proletarian state. The state is controlled by the working class in totality, not the dreaded vanguard controlling it.


I dont get this last bit. You said in the post I responded to

"You are absolutely right when you say State Capitalism was no way to achieve socialism. Lenin and the Bolsheviks would agree."

I said no this is not the case and that Lenin did think state capitalism was the way to achieve socialism

Now you are confirming that I was right in saying this in the first place and yet you accuse me of nitpicking! Make up your mindYou have stated multiple times, that the only thing the DOTP can be is state capitalism, that Lenin saw state capitalism as "the path" to socialism.

I said, and proved with the quotes, that Lenin saw state capitalism was a step toward socialism in Russia. Not "the path"

Regardless, the "state capitalism" he talks of is not in the context of the managers in the factories, of the CEO's and what have you, but in the context of the working class destroying these capitalist relations, piece by piece, and having political power.

The first major part being the end of "private property". The other factors of the capitalist mode of production may still persist. (Commodity production, wages, profit). However, all of which is at the discretion of the entire working class, as they abolish the system.

Something you never explain; why the working class would, and how it can, exploit itself and "administer capitalism"?

[Zulu]

Why the vanguard is necessary is to stop things like the German November Revolution from happening again; first, as the Situationists put it, "You must disarm Noske before he can kill you", and second, so workers do not hand power back to the bourgeoisie when faced with the contradiction that is proletarian ownership of the means of production.

Precisely.

I don't say trade-unionism and economism are bad or unnecessary, I say they are not enough. And it falls upon the vanguard to use trade-unionism to recruit as many workers as possible and prepare the movement to act decisively when and where it makes a real difference.

While I do fully understand the shortcomings of elitism, blanquism, etc., the opposite approach, namely, worshiping "The Worker", abstract worker, any worker, is just as dangerous. It's kind of ironic that it were the men of proletarian origins (Khrushchev, Kosygin, et al) who went fully revisionist after Stalin's death. Most famous revolutionaries come from the petty bourgeois class, and some others from the peasantry (including Stalin, Trotsky and Mao). But it is the proletariat that is considered a revolutionary class, and for one and only reason alone: they have nothing to lose in revolution.