Confusing the DOTP with Socialism

[Red Enemy]

Why do a lot of Stalinists confuse, or equate, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat with Socialism (lower phase of communist society)?

I notice this as something frequent among followers of Maoist Rebel News.

[Captain Ahab]

It's so they can continue pretending to be more "successful" than Trots, Leftcoms, and Anarchists.
Also, don't watch MRN if you value a functioning brain.

[Red Enemy]

It's so they can continue pretending to be more "successful" than Trots, Leftcoms, and Anarchists.
Also, don't watch MRN if you value a functioning brain.
I watch him to critique him...

I am in no way a Stalinist, nor will I ever be. I do, however, enjoy engaging them in discourse.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Because decades of revolutionary experience has taught that Socialism is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and that Communism sadly cannot be established overnight.

[Aurora]

Because in the 1930's the Soviet bureaucracy redefined socialism as what existed in the SU.

In 1935 the Comintern announced “the final and irrevocable triumph of socialism and the all-sided reinforcement of the state of the proletarian dictatorship, is achieved in the Soviet Union.”

We're all classless here, especially the proletarians!
No need for a state anymore, only a giant military-bureaucratic structure!

[revoltordie]

The idea that the dictatorship is in socialism is in lenins the state and revolution. I do not know if this is when the idea started. people think it because it was the idea of the state. The state that was obviously alienated from society and placing itself above it. It does not even follow lenins own logic. The state is a special body of armed men and power that seeks to be above society and find itself in a society of irreconcilable class antagonisms.

[RedSun]

Why do a lot of Stalinists confuse, or equate, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat with Socialism (lower phase of communist society)?

I notice this as something frequent among followers of Maoist Rebel News.

It was Lenin who actually equated the DOTP with Socialism.

"socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people".

V.I Lenin

"Leninists" and not "Stalinists" would be the correct term employed.

and that Communism sadly cannot be established overnight.

You have historical experiences which contradicts your statement.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Because decades of revolutionary experience has taught that Socialism is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and that Communism sadly cannot be established overnight.

No. Decades of experience have taught us that socialism is not something "implemented", that reality will have to conform to, but something that arises necessarily from economic necessity when mercantile economy exhausts its potential for adaption, and that the development of communism can only be the work of the workers ourselves, and that the dictatorship of the proletariat may not rule "for", as a representative of the proletariat, that the DotP consists of the proletariat itself.

[Ostrinski]

Equally as bad are those that say planned economy=dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

There is a debate to be had over the mode of production that ought to be had but I do not feel like engaging in right now, I'll do it in a bit perhaps.

But first of all, Lenin's use of the term "State Capitalism" is just an "internationalist" excuse for the restoration of capitalism under the NEP which was rightfully repealed. It was revisionism and ought to have been rejected on all accounts. Likewise, the Nepalese Maoists used bogus "internationalism" and appealed to global revolution to justify their capitalist policies. I quote Baburam Bhattarai:

“Today, the globalization of imperialist capitalism has increased many-fold as compared to the period of the October Revolution. The development of information technology has converted the world into a global village. However, due to the unequal and extreme development inherent in capitalist imperialism this has created inequality between different nations. In this context, there is still (some) possibility of revolution in a single country similar to the October revolution; however, in order to sustain the revolution, we definitely need a global or at least a regional wave of revolution in a couple of countries. In this context, Marxist revolutionaries should recognize the fact that in the current context, Trotskyism has become more relevant than Stalinism to advance the cause of the proletariat”. (The Red Spark, July 2009, Issue 1, Page-10, our translation from Nepali language)."

Of course the Soviet Union never managed to achieve what was outlined in State and Revolution, but the point was that it was in progress to it although the Soviet Union began to degenerate around the 1935's when Stalin's proposals of competitive elections and secret ballots were rejected in favor for the farce that took the place of elections. Obviously anyone should realize that Stalin was a failure in this regard and we should follow a radically divergent path to socialism next time it is attempted, however we also ought to recognize that if class struggle had properly continued under his reign (and perhaps against Stalin) then socialism could have been realized.
But going back to what SIOC actually means:

Here's a good letter where Stalin clarifies his position. For those of you who don't feel like reading here's a quote

"Leninism teaches that "the final victory of Socialism, in the sense of full guarantee against the restoration of bourgeois relations, is possible only on an international scale" (c.f. resolution of the Fourteenth Conference of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union).

This means that the serious assistance of the international proletariat is a force without which the problem of the final victory of Socialism in one country cannot be solved.

This, of course, does not mean that we must sit with folded arms and wait for assistance from outside.

On the contrary, this assistance of the international proletariat must be combined with our work to strengthen the defence of our country, to strengthen the Red Army and the Red Navy, to mobilise the whole country for the purpose of resisting military attack and attempts to restore bourgeois relations."

http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...1938/01/18.htm

So, in short, Stalin didn't think that the "final victory" of socialism, or the prevention of the restoration of capitalism, was possible in one country, but other tasks such as a planned economy were.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Almost as bad as confusing MDMA with 2CB.
It's like, you think it's going to be all, "Woah everything feels so good like the abolition of the commodity form!" but then it's like, "Oh my fuck, everything is melting into an opportunist mess of swirling colours and wage labour under 'proletarian' management and their voices sound all echo-y and their faces twist in to demonic fractal patterns!"

[Aurora]

The idea that the dictatorship is in socialism is in lenins the state and revolution. I do not know if this is when the idea started. people think it because it was the idea of the state. The state that was obviously alienated from society and placing itself above it. It does not even follow lenins own logic. The state is a special body of armed men and power that seeks to be above society and find itself in a society of irreconcilable class antagonisms.
Lenin doesn't equate the DOTP with socialism in the State and Revolution, he says that in socialism there will be a state but what he says is specifically a non-political state that is a state which has lost it's political function in favour of the mere administration of things, to paraphrase Engels.
Lenin says in socialism the state has withered in as much as there are no longer any classes, but the remnants of the state, the administration, is still necessary in order to distribute societies products insofar as society is not culturally or economically able to distribute to all according to need.

For Lenin the function of the state in socialism is to hand out vouchers for work done, there is no proletariat there isn't any dictatorship only the furthest reaching democracy that can exist before society surpasses democracy itself and enters communism.

[Lucretia]

Nowhere in Marx, Engels, or Lenin will you find any textual evidence to support the idea that the dictatorship of the proletariat exists in socialism. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a dictatorship of the working class over other classes, which necessarily means that it cannot exist in socialism, a classless society.

[Blake's Baby]

Why do a lot of Stalinists confuse, or equate, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat with Socialism (lower phase of communist society)?

I notice this as something frequent among followers of Maoist Rebel News.

Why do a lot of people (I won't call them 'Stalinists') confuse, or equate, Socialism with the lower phase of communist society?

[Q]

Nowhere in Marx, Engels, or Lenin will you find any textual evidence to support the idea that the dictatorship of the proletariat exists in socialism. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a dictatorship of the working class over other classes, which necessarily means that it cannot exist in socialism, a classless society.

I disagree on this notion. Socialism, which I equate with the lower phase of communism, is still very much a class society, albeit in a dying form.

I don't see the contradiction that many people here apparently see. As Lucretia says, the DotP is an hegemony of the proletariat over other classes. But not only that, it is a political hegemony.

Socialism, or the "lower phase of communism", is not equal to that, but expresses the transition of the capitalist mode of production that is dying and the communist mode of production that is coming into being. It is ruled by the basic paradigm of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution".

Socialism can possibly go on longer than the DotP, depending on production levels reaching certain levels, but I expect more that both trends run more or less parallel. In communism, that is ruled under the paradigm "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", we indeed enter a classless society where democracy is negated (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=6359) and we enter a society of free producers.

[Luís Henrique]

Why do a lot of Stalinists confuse, or equate, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat with Socialism (lower phase of communist society)?

I don't think this is the problem with Stalinism.

Rather, they confuse whatever was going on in Russia in 1925 with a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Luís Henrique

[l'Enfermé]

Why do a lot of people (I won't call them 'Stalinists') confuse, or equate, Socialism with the lower phase of communist society?
Probably because after Marx died it became a custom in the Marxist movement to use "socialism" as a shortcut for Marx's lower phase of communism and "communism" for the higher phase.

[Thirsty Crow]

Why do a lot of Stalinists confuse, or equate, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat with Socialism (lower phase of communist society)?

I notice this as something frequent among followers of Maoist Rebel News.
That's not the problem in itself.

Remember that the official ideology in the USSR proclaimed that social classes had been effectively ablished, at least in the sense that Marxists have always thought about social class, thus concluding that Soviet society is composed of two non-antagonistic classes (kolkhoz peasants and industrial workers) and the "stratum" of socialist intelligentsia. In such a way, what was really abolished was the Marxist view of social class.

The problem with equating socialism with the transitional society where the most basic drive is the actual revolutionary transformation is that it implies a fundamental difference with capitalism, and thus that socialism represents both a mode of production different from capitalism and communism (this can be seen in official soviet ideology as well, which claimed that the "fact" that there were no antagonistic classes and that production is organized around the five year plan, and not the "anarchy" of the market, meant that a new mode of production has been formed, but somehow that mode of production differed from communism in that it still operated on a class basis, but that was a non-antagonistic one, and the state still remained and was even to tighten its grip on society in a presumed transition to communism).


Socialism, which I equate with the lower phase of communism, is still very much a class society, albeit in a dying form.
Nope.
The lower phase is specifically thought about in terms of classlessness, though renumeration, distribution keep their character as a leftover of "bourgeois right" in that the regulating principle is labour time, but there is no value production here and there is no money (thus no capital), just a social development of the productive forces which enables the higher phase of communism.


Socialism, or the "lower phase of communism", is not equal to that, but expresses the transition of the capitalist mode of production that is dying and the communist mode of production that is coming into being. It is ruled by the basic paradigm of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution".
This paradigm presupposes as a necessity that labour casts off the shackles of alienation, and consequently, that its product no more appears in the social form of the commodity. The political hegmony you mention in relation to the DotP is precisely what enables the revolutionary transformation of society which culminates in the development of the productive forces in the lower phase, making way for free access, the higher phase.


Equally as bad are those that say planned economy=dictatorship of the proletariat.
Can't agree with this more.

[Red Enemy]

Why do a lot of people (I won't call them 'Stalinists') confuse, or equate, Socialism with the lower phase of communist society?
Lenin refers to the lower/first phase/stage of communism as socialism.

Semantics, really.

Am I missing some sarcasm...?

[Blake's Baby]

Maybe.

You're complaining about other people's confusion over terms and yet you're perpetuating another confusion of terms. What's the difference between Maoists thinking that DotP = socialism (it doesn't) and Leninists thinking the lower phase of communism = socialism (it doesn't)?

In fact, if you posit 'socialism' as a stage 'between' capitalism and communism, it makes more sense to apply it to the DotP than to the lower phase. Maybe the Stalinists/Maoists you complain of are just trying to make sense of the confusion of categories that are the legacy of Lenin?

[feeLtheLove]

Because the USSR declared that they were Socialist and have achieved the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. And of course who are the Stalinist to go against the mighty Stalin and his Soviet Union. That is somewhat of how it goes

[ind_com]

It was Lenin who actually equated the DOTP with Socialism.

"socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people".

V.I Lenin

"Leninists" and not "Stalinists" would be the correct term employed.


You have historical experiences which contradicts your statement.

It would be nice to see some analysis of this statement by those who support Lenin but distinguish between DOTP and socialism.

[Thirsty Crow]

It would be nice to see some analysis of this statement by those who support Lenin but distinguish between DOTP and socialism.
He was clearly wrong.
First in identifying the revolutionary transformation of society as a "state capitalist monoponly", since this presuposses the separation of the working class from the medium of its political rule (Lenin here argues in favour of a substitutionist view) and as the history of the Soviet Union shows us, this monopoly is no guarantee, but a barrier to the deepening and furthering of this revolutionary transformation.

He was also wrong insofar as this brings up a terminological confusion. Socialism is not capitalism (a different mode of production), socialism is state capitalist monopoly.

[Red Enemy]

Maybe.

You're complaining about other people's confusion over terms and yet you're perpetuating another confusion of terms. What's the difference between Maoists thinking that DotP = socialism (it doesn't) and Leninists thinking the lower phase of communism = socialism (it doesn't)?

The first point would to be that I am not complaining about semantics, but complaining about a revision of Marxism.

Second, when Lenin uses the word socialism, he is referring to the lower phase of communism. It is not a revision of Marxism itself, but a different use of language than Marx used. If it pleases you, I'll just say the lower phase of communism - protip: still referring to the same thing.

Unless you propose that Marx or Lenin believed in something between the DOTP and lower phase of communism?


In fact, if you posit 'socialism' as a stage 'between' capitalism and communism, it makes more sense to apply it to the DotP than to the lower phase. Maybe the Stalinists/Maoists you complain of are just trying to make sense of the confusion of categories that are the legacy of Lenin?It isn't a stage "between" capitalism and communism, that's the point. Using Socialism is just one way to differentiate between the lower phase of communist society and the higher phase, is just semantics, again.

If you seriously want to argue some ridiculous claim that Lenin using the word socialism, instead of saying "lower phase of communism", has someone done any damage or caused ML's to confuse the DOTP with Socialism (The lower phase of communism).

It's truly absurd to say that using a different word for something and equating two different things, is analogous.


Because the USSR declared that they were Socialist and have achieved the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. And of course who are the Stalinist to go against the mighty Stalin and his Soviet Union. That is somewhat of how it goes
The thing is, Stalin never equated the DOTP with Socialism.

He incorrectly declares that the USSR was a DOTP (past 1921), and incorrectly declares that socialism was achieved in Russia, but never equates them.

Stalin was, however, confused on the whole "classless" thing. Another declaration was the elimination of exploiting classes, but still acknowledging that the socialism in the USSR was not classless - there were still the working intelligentsia, peasants and proletariat.

[Lucretia]

I disagree on this notion. Socialism, which I equate with the lower phase of communism, is still very much a class society, albeit in a dying form.

I don't see the contradiction that many people here apparently see. As Lucretia says, the DotP is an hegemony of the proletariat over other classes. But not only that, it is a political hegemony.

Socialism, or the "lower phase of communism", is not equal to that, but expresses the transition of the capitalist mode of production that is dying and the communist mode of production that is coming into being. It is ruled by the basic paradigm of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution".

Socialism can possibly go on longer than the DotP, depending on production levels reaching certain levels, but I expect more that both trends run more or less parallel. In communism, that is ruled under the paradigm "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", we indeed enter a classless society where democracy is negated (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=6359) and we enter a society of free producers.

I would be very interested in seeing some kind of textual evidence from Marx, Engels, or Lenin to suggest that they viewed socialism -- to use the term Lenin coined to describe the lower phase of communist society -- as having classes. It sounds to me like you are confusing socialism with the transitional society moving as rapidly as possible from capitalism to socialism (and therefore continues to be marked by some aspects of both--for example, value and commodities). This is a very common mistake, but it is a mistake nevertheless.

[ind_com]

He was clearly wrong.
First in identifying the revolutionary transformation of society as a "state capitalist monoponly", since this presuposses the separation of the working class from the medium of its political rule (Lenin here argues in favour of a substitutionist view) and as the history of the Soviet Union shows us, this monopoly is no guarantee, but a barrier to the deepening and furthering of this revolutionary transformation.

He was also wrong insofar as this brings up a terminological confusion. Socialism is not capitalism (a different mode of production), socialism is state capitalist monopoly.

I think he had a new definition of socialism in mind, which includes the society immediately after the socialist revolution.

[Aurora]

It would be nice to see some analysis of this statement by those who support Lenin but distinguish between DOTP and socialism.
I was going to respond to that but i couldn't find what relevance it had to equating the DOTP with socialism.

The quote is taken out of context and it isn't even the full sentence.

Lenin isn't writing a piece like the State and Revolution about what socialism is, he is talking about the different levels of socialised means of production, the development of means of production into more socialised forms like joint-stock companies, cartels and state ownership.
Specifically he is talking about the monopolies and how they have been turned into state monopolies he gives the example of the German state taking over monopolies.
His point is state-monopolies are such a high level of socialisation that the only level above it is socialism itself, however, this doesn't mean that the German state of capitalists and junkers is advancing towards socialism rather state monopoly is "war-time penal servitude for the workers and war-time protection for capitalist profits".

On the other hand in Russia monopoly by the state, the soviets of workers and soldiers deputies, is definitely a step towards socialism because it advances the means of production from a low level of development closer to the higher.


Id really recommend reading the piece in question by Lenin here http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/11.htm#v25zz99h-360
And this by Engels where he writes of the exact same thing: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm

Both happen to be the most misunderstood and dishonestly quoted chapters in all of theirs authors works.

[RedSun]

I was going to respond to that but i couldn't find what relevance it had to equating the DOTP with socialism.

The quote is taken out of context and it isn't even the full sentence.

Lenin isn't writing a piece like the State and Revolution about what socialism is, he is talking about the different levels of socialised means of production, the development of means of production into more socialised forms like joint-stock companies, cartels and state ownership.
Specifically he is talking about the monopolies and how they have been turned into state monopolies he gives the example of the German state taking over monopolies.
His point is state-monopolies are such a high level of socialisation that the only level above it is socialism itself, however, this doesn't mean that the German state of capitalists and junkers is advancing towards socialism rather state monopoly is "war-time penal servitude for the workers and war-time protection for capitalist profits".

On the other hand in Russia monopoly by the state, the soviets of workers and soldiers deputies, is definitely a step towards socialism because it advances the means of production from a low level of development closer to the higher.


Both happen to be the most misunderstood and dishonestly quoted chapters in all of theirs authors works.

" Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly."

Here is the full quote. I continue to see Lenin equating socialism to state capitalism monopoly made to serve the whole people which presuppose the DOTP.

[Blake's Baby]

The first point would to be that I am not complaining about semantics, but complaining about a revision of Marxism...

No you're not, you're complaining about wt you see as the mis-application of a term to a thing. 'The DotP is not socialism! Stalino-Maoists are wrong!' you cry.

Sure they are, the term 'socialism' does not apply to the DotP in Marxist schemata (or at least in Marx's schema, anyone can of course call themselves a Marxist and believe any old nonsense - but then, I'd argue that's incorrectly applying the term 'Marxist').

But so are Leninists who think that the term 'socialism' can be applied exclusively to the lower phase of communism. 'Socialism' is not something that comes between 'capitalism' and 'communism'. 'Communism' is not equal to 'the higher phase of communism'.


...Second, when Lenin uses the word socialism, he is referring to the lower phase of communism. It is not a revision of Marxism itself, but a different use of language than Marx used. If it pleases you, I'll just say the lower phase of communism - protip: still referring to the same thing...

Yes, if you want to discuss Marxism, with Marxists, I'd advise you to use the term 'the lower phase of communism'.

Why is Lenin wrongly using 'socialism' to mean 'the lower phase of communism' OK but Maoists wrongly using 'socialism' to mean 'the dicttorship of the proletariat' not OK?


...

Unless you propose that Marx or Lenin believed in something between the DOTP and lower phase of communism?...

Marx didn't, as far as I can tell. I'm pretty unsure as to what Lenin believed.


...It isn't a stage "between" capitalism and communism, that's the point. Using Socialism is just one way to differentiate between the lower phase of communist society and the higher phase, is just semantics, again...

Isn't the alleged Maoist/Stalinist use of 'socialism' to mean 'the DotP' just 'semantics' then?


If you seriously want to argue some ridiculous claim that Lenin using the word socialism, instead of saying "lower phase of communism", has someone done any damage or caused ML's to confuse the DOTP with Socialism (The lower phase of communism)...

Sorry, this bit's kinda incoherent, not really sure what it is that you're getting worked up about.

Seems to me that there is a general confusion among Leninists (Stalinists and Trotskyists) who equate nationalisation of indstry with the DotP with the lower stage of communism and call it all 'socialism'.


...It's truly absurd to say that using a different word for something and equating two different things, is analogous...

It's truly absurd to claim that Lenin wrongly using the word 'socialism' isn't the same as Mao (or whoever) wrongly using the word 'socialism'.


...
The thing is, Stalin never equated the DOTP with Socialism.

He incorrectly declares that the USSR was a DOTP (past 1921), and incorrectly declares that socialism was achieved in Russia, but never equates them...

Except he thought that they both happened in the same place t the same time? Or did he think one follwed the other?


...Stalin was, however, confused on the whole "classless" thing. Another declaration was the elimination of exploiting classes, but still acknowledging that the socialism in the USSR was not classless - there were still the working intelligentsia, peasants and proletariat.

So, he didn't think the 'socialism' that had been acheived was the lower phase of communism? Looks like he really was linking 'socialism' and 'the DotP' then (while I'm quite in agreement with you that the Soviet Union, after 1921, could in no way be regarded as the DotP in actual fact).

[Red Enemy]

No you're not, you're complaining about wt you see as the mis-application of a term to a thing. 'The DotP is not socialism! Stalino-Maoists are wrong!' you cry.It's not the misapplication of a term I have an issue with, but the combining of the proletariat dictatorship with the lower phase of communism and calling it a part of Leninist theory.

My beef is with the fact that they claim socialism is a class society, contrary to anything Lenin says.


But so are Leninists who think that the term 'socialism' can be applied exclusively to the lower phase of communism. 'Socialism' is not something that comes between 'capitalism' and 'communism'. 'Communism' is not equal to 'the higher phase of communism'.You're comparing apples and oranges.

The point is that I don't care if you disagree with the way Lenin used the term socialism to refer to the lower phase of communism. It's semantics, it's irrelevant, it's not a revision of Marxist theory in any sense. As well, it's not as if Lenin calimed that Marx used it in that way.


Yes, if you want to discuss Marxism, with Marxists, I'd advise you to use the term 'the lower phase of communism'. Would you like me to speak in German as well?


Why is Lenin wrongly using 'socialism' to mean 'the lower phase of communism' OK but Maoists wrongly using 'socialism' to mean 'the dicttorship of the proletariat' not OK?It's semantics in the former, and a revision of theory in the latter.

THAT'S THE BLOODY POINT.


Marx didn't, as far as I can tell. I'm pretty unsure as to what Lenin believed.Check out Chapter 5 of State and Revolution ;)

You'll find Lenin to be in agreement with Marx.


Isn't the alleged Maoist/Stalinist use of 'socialism' to mean 'the DotP' just 'semantics' then?No.

Lenin acknowledges his use of socialism to be in reference to the lower phase of communism.

The Maoists and Stalinists who equate the DOTP and Socialism are combining to separate things into one, and even against Stalin to an extent:

Protip: Stalin declared Socialism to be achieved in 1934...I wonder what Stalin believed their was between 1918 and then...hmmm...


Sorry, this bit's kinda incoherent, not really sure what it is that you're getting worked up about.You, comparing apples and oranges.


Seems to me that there is a general confusion among Leninists (Stalinists and Trotskyists) who equate nationalisation of indstry with the DotP with the lower stage of communism and call it all 'socialism'.
Yes, Trots wrongly say that nationalized industry is what makes a workers state (DOTP). They do not equate the DOTP with socialism/lower phase of communism.



It's truly absurd to claim that Lenin wrongly using the word 'socialism' isn't the same as Mao (or whoever) wrongly using the word 'socialism'.I'm going to call a car an automobile...that is not the same as calling a bicycle a tire.


Except he thought that they both happened in the same place t the same time? Or did he think one follwed the other?I'm not sure. I'll give you the possibility that he believes that socialism/lower phase of communism is achieved within the DOTP.


So, he didn't think the 'socialism' that had been acheived was the lower phase of communism? Looks like he really was linking 'socialism' and 'the DotP' then (while I'm quite in agreement with you that the Soviet Union, after 1921, could in no way be regarded as the DotP in actual fact).I'll bring my reference of Stalin declaring socialism to have been achieved in 1934 to the forefront.

What then, if Stalin equated the DOTP with Socialism, was the USSR between 1918 and 1934 in his eyes?

[Blake's Baby]

It's not the misapplication of a term I have an issue with, but the combining of the proletariat dictatorship with the lower phase of communism and calling it a part of Leninist theory.

My beef is with the fact that they claim socialism is a class society, contrary to anything Lenin says...

My beef is that Lenin calls the lower phase of communism 'socialism', contrary to anything Marx says.


...You're comparing apples and oranges.

The point is that I don't care if you disagree with the way Lenin used the term socialism to refer to the lower phase of communism. It's semantics, it's irrelevant, it's not a revision of Marxist theory in any sense. As well, it's not as if Lenin calimed that Marx used it in that way...

I doubt Mao cares if you disagree with the way he used 'socialism'.


...Would you like me to speak in German as well?...

Naturlich.

Unless you're discussing Lenin in which case I want you to type in Russian.


...It's semantics in the former, and a revision of theory in the latter.

THAT'S THE BLOODY POINT...

No, it's confusion in the former, and it's confusion in the latter. Apples and different apples.


...Check out Chapter 5 of State and Revolution ;)

You'll find Lenin to be in agreement with Marx.

No.

Lenin acknowledges his use of socialism to be in reference to the lower phase of communism.

The Maoists and Stalinists who equate the DOTP and Socialism are combining to separate things into one, and even against Stalin to an extent:

Protip: Stalin declared Socialism to be achieved in 1934...I wonder what Stalin believed their was between 1918 and then...hmmm...

You, comparing apples and oranges.

Yes, Trots wrongly say that nationalized industry is what makes a workers state (DOTP). They do not equate the DOTP with socialism/lower phase of communism.


I'm going to call a car an automobile...that is not the same as calling a bicycle a tire...

Calling a bicycle a tyre - or rather, calling a tyre a bicycle - is what you and Lenin are doing. 'Socialism' is equal to 'a part of socialism' in your naming system.

Calling a bycicle factory a bicycle is what the Maoists/Stalinists are doing, as far as I can see. They're no more wrong than you are calling a tyre a bicycle. You're wrong, they're wrong, Mao's wrong, Lenin's wrong.


...I'm not sure. I'll give you the possibility that he believes that socialism/lower phase of communism is achieved within the DOTP.

I'll bring my reference of Stalin declaring socialism to have been achieved in 1934 to the forefront.

What then, if Stalin equated the DOTP with Socialism, was the USSR between 1918 and 1934 in his eyes?

Dunno. What Stalin thought about anything has always been a great and impenetrable and frankly uninteresting mystery to me.

[Conscript]

My beef is that Lenin calls the lower phase of communism 'socialism', contrary to anything Marx says.



I've read the thread, but can't seem to find an answer. Why does this matter? How is this an issue?

Unlike say, combining the dotp and socialism/communism, there are no implications.

[Red Enemy]

My beef is that Lenin calls the lower phase of communism 'socialism', contrary to anything Marx says.Semantics.


I doubt Mao cares if you disagree with the way he used 'socialism'.I don't care either.


Naturlich.

Unless you're discussing Lenin in which case I want you to type in Russian.
Har har.


No, it's confusion in the former, and it's confusion in the latter. Apples and different apples.This doesn't sound like confusion:

"But when Lassalle, having in view such a social order (usually called socialism, but termed by Marx the first phase of communism)..." - VI Lenin, State and Revolution, Chapter 5, Section III

Not much confusion there. Very clear about what he is talking about.


Calling a bicycle a tyre - or rather, calling a tyre a bicycle - is what you and Lenin are doing. 'Socialism' is equal to 'a part of socialism' in your naming system.Again, it's semantics.

Not just that, Lenin was clear about what he used socialism for. You're making a big deal out of nothing.


Calling a bycicle factory a bicycle is what the Maoists/Stalinists are doing, as far as I can see. They're no more wrong than you are calling a tyre a bicycle. You're wrong, they're wrong, Mao's wrong, Lenin's wrong.You're wrong.

You're dogmatic about a fucking word, which Lenin was clear on with his usage.


Dunno. What Stalin thought about anything has always been a great and impenetrable and frankly uninteresting mystery to me.Nor Lenin, considering you haven't read much of him.

[Blake's Baby]

I've read the thread, but can't seem to find an answer. Why does this matter? How is this an issue?

Unlike say, combining the dotp and socialism/communism, there are no implications.

It allows the confusion to later develop that 'socialism' comes between 'capitalism' and 'communism'.

What comes between capitalist society and socialist society is not socialism. That would be stupid.

As Marx says in the Critique of the Gotha Progrmme, 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."

If there is a confusion over what 'socialism' is and it thought to come 'between' capitalist society and communist society - confusion that resuts from Lenin's redefinition of 'socialist' to mean 'the lower stge of communism' and 'communism' to mean 'the higher stage of communism' - then it might be thought that this passage means:

"Between capitalist and (the higher stage of) communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other (the lower stage of communism = 'socialism'). Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

So the DotP = both socialism and the lower stage of communism.

Such a translation, implicit in Lenin's confusion, would be a massive error.

[Red Enemy]

It allows the confusion to later develop that 'socialism' comes between 'capitalism' and 'communism'.Yes, if you don't know how to read Marx or Lenin.

It's quite clear in State and Revolution.


What comes between capitalist society and socialist society is not socialism. That would be stupid.Sure.


As Marx says in the Critique of the Gotha Progrmme, 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."Yes, nor argument here.


If there is a confusion over what 'socialism' is and it thought to come 'between' capitalist society and communist society - confusion that resuts from Lenin's redefinition of 'socialist' to mean 'the lower stge of communism' and 'communism' to mean 'the higher stage of communism' - then it might be thought that this passage means:

"Between capitalist and (the higher stage of) communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other (the lower stage of communism = 'socialism'). Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

So the DotP = both socialism and the lower stage of communism.

Such a translation, implicit in Lenin's confusion, would be a massive error.
But it's not implicit in Lenin's "confusion. There was no confusion The only way you can be confused is by NOT reading Marx and Lenin.

You admit not not having read Lenin, hence YOUR confusion.

[Blake's Baby]

...
You admit not not having read Lenin, hence YOUR confusion.

You're right, I have not not read Lenin. Obviously, I haven't not not read all of Lenin, he was pretty prolific.

So, anyway, this sentence

"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."

means, in Lenin-speak:

"Between capitalist and socialist (lower-stge of 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."

But it's taken as meaning

"Between capitalist and (higher-stage) communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other (called socialism). Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

Marx was clear. Lenin wasn't clear. Other people have taken Lenin's lack of clarity and errected a church of confusion on it.

[Red Enemy]

You're right, I have not not read Lenin. Obviously, I haven't not not read all of Lenin, he was pretty prolific.Lenin's State and Revolution is fairly easy to read.


So, anyway, this sentence

"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."

means, in Lenin-speak:

"Between capitalist and socialist (lower-stge of 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."Well, that's implying that he believes the lower phase of communism is not communism. Which is false. However, the way you word it would be correct, in essence from a non Leninist perspective as well.

His section on the DOTP is titled: "The Transition from Capitalism to Communism"

His section on socialism is titled: "First Stage of Communism".


But it's taken as meaning

"Between capitalist and (higher-stage) communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other (called socialism). Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

Marx was clear. Lenin wasn't clear. Other people have taken Lenin's lack of clarity and errected a church of confusion on it.
Lenin was very clear.

STATE AND REVOLUTION

CHAPTER 5

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm

It's only unclear to those that don't read Lenin.

[Blake's Baby]

Lenin's State and Revolution is fairly easy to read...

I know, I've read it.


...
Well, that's implying that he believes the lower phase of communism is not communism. Which is false. However, the way you word it would be correct, in essence from a non Leninist perspective as well...

No it isn't.

Marx uses 'communist society' to mean 'lower and higher stages of communist society'. If Lenin uses 'socialism' and 'communism' to men 'lower stage' and 'higher stage' respectively, then if something comes between 'capitalist and communist society' must be 'socialist society'.

Non-Leninists don't use 'socialism' to mean 'the lower stage of communist society'.


...His section on the DOTP is titled: "The Transition from Capitalism to Communism"

His section on socialism is titled: "First Stage of Communism".


Lenin was very clear.

STATE AND REVOLUTION

CHAPTER 5

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm

It's only unclear to those that don't read Lenin.

Are you claiming that Stalin, Mao and all their progeny don't read Lenin?

[Conscript]

It allows the confusion to later develop that 'socialism' comes between 'capitalism' and 'communism'.

What comes between capitalist society and socialist society is not socialism. That would be stupid.

As Marx says in the Critique of the Gotha Progrmme, 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."

If there is a confusion over what 'socialism' is and it thought to come 'between' capitalist society and communist society - confusion that resuts from Lenin's redefinition of 'socialist' to mean 'the lower stge of communism' and 'communism' to mean 'the higher stage of communism' - then it might be thought that this passage means:

"Between capitalist and (the higher stage of) communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other (the lower stage of communism = 'socialism'). Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

So the DotP = both socialism and the lower stage of communism.

Such a translation, implicit in Lenin's confusion, would be a massive error.

I see what you mean. I did this for a while, even had a discussion with robbo on it when I first came to this forum, I even used that quote. I just couldn't understand the distinction, with my knowledge mostly learned from my stalinist comrades.

But unless Lenin himself combined the dotp and what comes after it, isn't the issue with leninists?

[Blake's Baby]

It's his usage that has influenced the Leninists. Not calling the lower stage of communism 'socialism' makes the distinctions between the DotP, lower stage and higher stage explicit. Not making that sequence explict means all sorts of confusions are possible.

[Red Enemy]

No it isn't.

Marx uses 'communist society' to mean 'lower and higher stages of communist society'.Yes, he does. He also uses socialism to refer to both that as well.

Your point?

Do you also complain when a Trot calls the DOTP a proletarian/workers' state?


If Lenin uses 'socialism' and 'communism' to men 'lower stage' and 'higher stage' respectively, then if something comes between 'capitalist and communist society' must be 'socialist society'.That's just you making a straw man.

Lenin does not suggest that their is a "socialist society" in between capitalism and communism. If you claim to have read State and Revolution, Chapter 5, as referenced before, would prove that.

As I said, and you seem to ignore, Lenin even named his sections

II. The Transition from Capitalism to COMMUNISM

Not socialism, communism. That alone can show you he doesn't view socialism as separate from communism, but uses it JUST TO REFER TO THE LPC.

III. First Stage of Communism

Hooolllyyyy Shit! He doesn't even title it "Socialism"!!!

WHAT IS THIS MADNESS BLAKE'S BABY!?! WHAT!?


Non-Leninists don't use 'socialism' to mean 'the lower stage of communist society'.That's fine. It doesn't bother me either way. Usually I'll say "Socialism/lower phase of communism" when I discuss it. Honestly, it makes no different unless you're an idiot.


Are you claiming that Stalin, Mao and all their progeny don't read Lenin?Either they don't read Lenin, or they misread Lenin.

Maoist Rebel News (this is where I have noticed the equating of DOTP with Lower phase of communism/socialism) clearly hasn't read State and Revolution.

I presented him with Lenin's Chapter 5 of State and Revolution, proving that socialism/lower phase of communism is classless, and showing him how Lenin shows that the DOTP (Transition from capitalism to communism) is NOT the same as the lower phase of communism/socialism.

He responded saying

"wtf is wrong with you? Do you not see what you're doing?

Dictatorship of the Proletariat is socialism, becuase in capitalism the bourgeois is the dictatorship. Why are you stupid? You're defining socialism as communism.

I hereby order you to stop calling yourself a communist. Go form another international. Seriously you're fucked."

The only way he could equate the DOTP with Socialism, and not see socialism as the first phase of communism, is IF HE DID NOT READ CHAPTER 5 OF STATE AND REVOLUTION.

[Red Enemy]

It's his usage that has influenced the Leninists. Not calling the lower stage of communism 'socialism' makes the distinctions between the DotP, lower stage and higher stage explicit. Not making that sequence explict means all sorts of confusions are possible.
Then why is it that only Stalinists/Maoists get confused with this?

Bordigists, Trotskyists, and Damen Left Comms don't have the same issue of getting confused with it.

Most other Non-Leninists don't seem to get confused with Lenin's use of language, unless they are SPGBites.

All it takes is to read one small chapter in State and Revolution.

[Aurora]

" Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly."

Here is the full quote. I continue to see Lenin equating socialism to state capitalism monopoly made to serve the whole people which presuppose the DOTP.
Lenin is talking specifically about the socialist form of property, he says the socialist form of property is state capitalist monopoly which has ceased to be capitalist monopoly i.e which serves the whole people. Capitalist monopoly in the hands of the proletarian dictatorship doesn't serve the whole people it serves the workers. Socialism is so called because it is truly social, truly deserving of the name of society because it serves the whole people.

To put it another way with capitalist states state ownership serves only the protection of bourgeois interests, but with a workers state state ownership and organisation of production according to a general plan serves the proletariat, socialism is just the same ownership and organisation but which serves the whole people i.e presupposes a classless society, the end of the proletarian dictatorship.

[RedSun]

Lenin is talking specifically about the socialist form of property, he says the socialist form of property is state capitalist monopoly which has ceased to be capitalist monopoly i.e which serves the whole people. Capitalist monopoly in the hands of the proletarian dictatorship doesn't serve the whole people it serves the workers. Socialism is so called because it is truly social, truly deserving of the name of society because it serves the whole people.

To put it another way with capitalist states state ownership serves only the protection of bourgeois interests, but with a workers state state ownership and organisation of production according to a general plan serves the proletariat, socialism is just the same ownership and organisation but which serves the whole people i.e presupposes a classless society, the end of the proletarian dictatorship.

But how can you have state and capitalism in a socialist society?