Maoism.

[LOLseph Stalin]

What are some good beginner texts on Maoism? According to a member of the site I apparently uphold the Maoist stance on DotP without even realizing it so I figured I might as well learn more about Maoism.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

On contradiction (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm)

[ind_com]

What are some good beginner texts on Maoism? According to a member of the site I apparently uphold the Maoist stance on DotP without even realizing it so I figured I might as well learn more about Maoism.

There's a wonderful study guide on MLM here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxism-leninism-maoism-t175401/index.html?t=175401

What exactly is your position on DotP?

[LOLseph Stalin]

There's a wonderful study guide on MLM here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxism-leninism-maoism-t175401/index.html?t=175401

What exactly is your position on DotP?

To get an understanding of my view on DotP just take a look here. This was actually the original discussion which inspired this thread. http://www.revleft.com/vb/has-country-ever-t179362/index2.html

[ind_com]

To get an understanding of my view on DotP just take a look here. This was actually the original discussion which inspired this thread. http://www.revleft.com/vb/has-country-ever-t179362/index2.html

Okay, so your theoretical line on DOTP seems to be the same as the Maoist line so far. But your historical line is different, as we consider the USSR to have been socialist under Stalin. Theoretically, in addition to equating socialism and the DOTP we think that classes exist under socialism, a new capitalist class can arise from the bureaucracy, and that the proletariat must spread the revolution worldwide and continue revolutions within the socialist societies in order to create communism. Do you agree with this?

[LOLseph Stalin]

Okay, so your theoretical line on DOTP seems to be the same as the Maoist line so far. But your historical line is different, as we consider the USSR to have been socialist under Stalin. Theoretically, in addition to equating socialism and the DOTP we think that classes exist under socialism, a new capitalist class can arise from the bureaucracy, and that the proletariat must spread the revolution worldwide and continue revolutions within the socialist societies in order to create communism. Do you agree with this?

Classes how exactly? As in classes arising from the party? If you're talking about a privileged party then that I don't consider socialism personally. I do definitely agree that revolution must be spread worldwide, which does directly contradict Stalin's stance.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Well, the term Marxist-Leninist-Maoist is quite recent so there are still a number of controversies as contending schools of thought debate what it means to be a Maoist. However I've been meaning to assemble a library of Maoism for the People's War Group that I moderate so I'll link you a couple things.

Orthdox Marxist-Leninist Maoism (the term "Orthdox isn't really appropriate considering that MLM is only twenty years old)

Dialogue of Josh Mozaud Paul, or the "three headed beast" (This work is 15 parts long)
http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/p/3-headed-beast.html

Maoism or Trotskyism?
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?g6nsqj65xpzdx5y


Notes towards the Study of Marxist-Leninist-Maoism (I'm pretty sure this is in the orthdox catogory, however I haven't read it yet)
http://www.bannedthought.net/India/PeoplesMarch/PM1999-2006/publications/mlm/contents.htm

From Marx to Mao, A Study in Revolutionary Dialetics (I've read parts of this, its basically a more coherent version of On Contradiction
http://www.bannedthought.net/MLM-Theory/MLM-Intro/Marx2Mao.pdf

Libertarian Maoism or Kobad Ghandy Thought (probably the newest current, though arguably a version of this existed in France with Anarco-Maoism and French Left-Maoism but it is important to note that libertarian Maoism isn't related to French Maoism and is a development of the Indian MLM school of thought)

Questions on People's Freedom and Emancipation Part 1
http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article3646.html

Collected works of Kobad Ghandy
http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article3646.html

Modern American Maoism

Two Concepts of the Mass Line
http://kasamaproject.org/theory/2057-89two-concepts-of-mass-line-two-different-roads-part-2

Socialist Methods and the Stalin Era Purges.
http://revolutionaryfrontlines.wordpress.com/2010/03/26/socialist-methods-and-the-stalin-era-purges/


Collected writtings of Mike Ely:
http://kasamaproject.org/kasama/4355-reading-clusters

This list is horribly inadequate, but I hope it is at least vaguely helpful

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Classes how exactly? As in classes arising from the party? If you're talking about a privileged party then that I don't consider socialism personally. I do definitely agree that revolution must be spread worldwide, which does directly contradict Stalin's stance.

Under socialism there are still classes. Now of course to some this seems absurd "how are there classes in a classless society". However when Marx spoke of abolishing class he was merely referring to a relationship to the mode of production that assumed that the relationship between the Base and Superstructure was not Dialetical, or that changing the mode of production essentially would allow the bourgeois to "wither away" once the DOTP removes the military resistance of the bourgeois, or if the DOTP exterminates each bourgeois individually.

Maoism on the other hand presumes that there is a dialetical relationship between the base and the superstructure, that even if you establish political hegemony for the proletariat, the bourgeois from the capitalist era are eliminated, and if means of production are nationalized/socialized, then the bourgeois still exist. This is because bourgeois ideology still is hegemonic and therefore enforces capitalist relations without the existence of capitalism as a mode of production. Louis Athusser described a distinction between the mode of production and the mode of reproduction. The mode of production refers to the property relations while the mode of reproduction refers to the conditions that make those property relations possible. So under the DOTP, while the mode of production might be socialized, the mode of reproduction is still capitalist as long as bourgeois ideology retains cultural hegemony. This is how the bourgeois arise in socialism without capitalist property, and this is why class struggle needs to continue under socialism.

[Mauve Osprey]

Very interesting. I was unaware that there were so many different traditions of Maoist thought. Libertarian Maoism, Anarcho-Maoism, and Left Maoism seem pretty strange. What are some thoughts on those ideologies and where could I find out more about them?

[kasama-rl]

When I was a kid (in high school) during the 1960s, i made a short list of the principles by which I would judge political trends. I decided to study them all, and uncover the best and most revolutionary trend, and would join it.

My principles were:
1) The dictatorship of the proletariat -- the need for a radical break in society and the dominance of a completely different anti-capitalist road.

2) the need for force in the need for a radical break -- I did not believe in peaceful transition, or the idea that mere pressure would get the changes we need.

3) The need for leadership by the working class -- those who have "nothing to lose" at the bottom of society are those with the least attachment to the current order, and are most likely to carry through the most radical changes.

4) Support for the national liberation struggles of the world (including the vietnamese at that time, and also the African American struggle for liberation).

When I went through the left (and I studied the trotskyists, and the pro-soviet types, and PLP, and the anarchists etc.) i became convinced that Maoism was the most forceful and creative advocate for those four principles.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Under socialism there are still classes. Now of course to some this seems absurd "how are there classes in a classless society". However when Marx spoke of abolishing class he was merely referring to a relationship to the mode of production that assumed that the relationship between the Base and Superstructure was not Dialetical, or that changing the mode of production essentially would allow the bourgeois to "wither away" once the DOTP removes the military resistance of the bourgeois, or if the DOTP exterminates each bourgeois individually.

Maoism on the other hand presumes that there is a dialetical relationship between the base and the superstructure, that even if you establish political hegemony for the proletariat, the bourgeois from the capitalist era are eliminated, and if means of production are nationalized/socialized, then the bourgeois still exist. This is because bourgeois ideology still is hegemonic and therefore enforces capitalist relations without the existence of capitalism as a mode of production. Louis Athusser described a distinction between the mode of production and the mode of reproduction. The mode of production refers to the property relations while the mode of reproduction refers to the conditions that make those property relations possible. So under the DOTP, while the mode of production might be socialized, the mode of reproduction is still capitalist as long as bourgeois ideology retains cultural hegemony. This is how the bourgeois arise in socialism without capitalist property, and this is why class struggle needs to continue under socialism.

How would the bourgeoisie still enforce capitalist relations when they're no longer in control though?

[DDR]

How would the bourgeoisie still enforce capitalist relations when they're no longer in control though?

It's not capitalists per se, but the ideas of the burgeoise that anyone that lives in a capitalist society tend to have. As long as burgeoise culture isn't erradicated the risk of counterrevolution exist, hence the necesity of the continuity of the class struggle in socialist societies.

[LOLseph Stalin]

It's not capitalists per se, but the ideas of the burgeoise that anyone that lives in a capitalist society tend to have. As long as burgeoise culture isn't erradicated the risk of counterrevolution exist, hence the necesity of the continuity of the class struggle in socialist societies.

Ah. Well that I agree with since the bourgeoisie won't just magically disappear when capitalism does unless you kill them all, and well that isn't exactly viewed as favourable.

[DDR]

Ah. Well that I agree with since the bourgeoisie won't just magically disappear when capitalism does unless you kill them all, and well that isn't exactly viewed as favourable.

If you try to solve that by firing squads I'm afraid you'll have to shoot way to much people, like every one who has ever live in a capitalis society. The problem is more of hegemonic culture than anything. Burgeoise culture destroyed the hegemony of the feudal one, just like socialist culture must be hegemonic in order to survive. And to claryfy, I'm not talking about brain washing or anything like it.

[Fourth Internationalist]

as we consider the USSR to have been socialist under Stalin.

Is this a universal view to all Maoists? I pretty much don't really mind Maoism, Marxism-Leninism, or any other tendency's views, ideas, etc. at all except for their favorable views on what I would consider non-proletarian dictatorships.

[LOLseph Stalin]

If you try to solve that by firing squads I'm afraid you'll have to shoot way to much people, like every one who has ever live in a capitalis society. The problem is more of hegemonic culture than anything. Burgeoise culture destroyed the hegemony of the feudal one, just like socialist culture must be hegemonic in order to survive. And to claryfy, I'm not talking about brain washing or anything like it.

How would you get rid of them then?

[DDR]

How would you get rid of them then?

By empowering the masses.

[LOLseph Stalin]

By empowering the masses.

But wouldn't the bourgeoisie by default have no interest in serving the same interest as the masses?

Btw, I'm loving the username if it's based on what I think it is. Ostalgie, yay! \o/

[DDR]

But wouldn't the bourgeoisie by default have no interest in serving the same interest as the masses?

Expropiate all their wealth and property and send them a couple of years to a gulag resort, make them to work for the same wage the used to paid unskilled workers, same laboral conditions, same contracts, same exploitation, force them to make a living like they forced others. After that I bet they would not complain in a socialist society.


Btw, I'm loving the username if it's based on what I think it is. Ostalgie, yay! \o/

Yes indeed, I remember someone in this forum who asked me if it was for the game Dance Dance Revolution... :cursing:

[Fourth Internationalist]

*send them a couple of years to a gulag resort, make them to work for the same wage the used to paid unskilled workers, same laboral conditions, same contracts, same exploitation, force them to make a living like they forced others. After that I bet they would not complain in a socialist society.

This will not help our cause at all. Letting the capitalists experience socialism will make them socialist, torturing them will never. In fact, doing this will only cause hatred for socialism from the capitalists, their friends and families, its skeptical supporters, and unsure possible socialists.

[LOLseph Stalin]

This will not help our cause at all. Letting the capitalists experience socialism will make them socialist, torturing them will never. In fact, doing this will only cause hatred for socialism from the capitalists, their friends and families, its skeptical supporters, and unsure possible socialists.

Not true. There's people who hated socialism in the past socialist regimes. Then again, it's debatable among tendencies whether they were even socialist or not. However, my point still stands. Not everybody is going to magically turn socialist just like we won't magically turn capitalist.

[DDR]

This will not help our cause at all. Letting the capitalists experience socialism will make them socialist, torturing them will never. In fact, doing this will only cause hatred for socialism from the capitalists, their friends and families, its skeptical supporters, and unsure possible socialists.

I belive in shock therapy, let them experiment in their onw flesh why capitalism is inmoral, let them live as workers Ayn Rand's wettes dream if needed. They preach the theories of capitalism and wealth making, well, let them feel the results of it, make them live a real life in their dream world. Why we flourish in times of crisis? Because more people feel more deeply the exploitation, and so it's the only way they will learn to apreciate what socialist life has to offer, for it will be vastly different from what it used to be.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Not everybody is going to magically turn socialist just like we won't magically turn capitalist. Gulags will only turn people away from your cause. They will think you people are disgusting and cruel, and that is how they will justify their attacks against you. I know if some guys sent many of my friends and family to gulags just because they are capitalists, I would want to fight against them, no matter how many red flags they wave.


let them feel the results of it, make them live a real life in their dream world.That will only be counter-productive, and it will justify their hatred at you.


There's people who hated socialism in the past socialist regimes.

If what past "socialist" regimes had was socialism, then I am an anti-socialist and their hatred for "socialism" is justified.

[DDR]

You don't get it, this isn't a physical gulag, it's a practical one. They have only experienced capitalism in one side of the table, let the try the other side. Force Glen Beck, Ruper Murdoch or Alan Greenspan to live in what it's now minimum wage, 12 hours a day, same healthcare benefits and days off as a waitress or any other unskilled worker, and pay rent, alimentation, transportation, leisure, etc. at the same prices as the capitalist market dictates. It's more moral than forced labor (and more practical),absolutely more than firing squads, plus no capitalist nation could say a word against this practice.

[Blake's Baby]

What are some good beginner texts on Maoism? According to a member of the site I apparently uphold the Maoist stance on DotP without even realizing it so I figured I might as well learn more about Maoism.

Actually, I said that you uphold the Trotskyist stance on the DotP, but rather confusingly express it in Maoist language.

But don't let that stop you.

[Ismail]

In Russia, Albania, and in every People's Democracy (from Bulgaria to Poland, from the DPRK to Vietnam) there were many bourgeois intellectuals, petty merchants, etc. who threw their lot in with a victorious communist movement. Outright capitalists changing sides, though, was quite rare and they almost always fled if they could (e.g. from North Vietnam and Korea to the South, from Eastern Europe to Western Europe and the USA) which isn't too surprising, seeing as how their whole livelihood and psychology were vested in the exploitation (and justifying thereof) of labor.

Letting capitalists experience socialism will, on the whole, make them want capitalism back since they have both external support (from capitalist states) and remain accustomed to their old psychological views. If there are those who genuinely want to contribute to the new society, any abilities as organizers, administrators, etc. they possess will be used as was the case in every state I just mentioned.

In fact it was Trotsky and his followers in the 30's who were attacking the "Stalinist bureaucracy" for supposedly allowing too many ex-Mensheviks and former feudal and bourgeois figures in the cultural, economic, judicial, etc. realms.

[Hiero]

Lin Biao's MIA archive (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/lin-biao/index.htm). Lin Bia was a major architect for the Cultural Revolution. He had a different line from the Gang of Four led by Jiang Qin.

I find his speaches very informative of the conflict that was occuring in China. However he mentions in the 1966 speach that thoose who are wishing to restory capitalism are limited in number. And he constantly promotes Mao as a cult figure, both I find wrong.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Force Glen Beck, Ruper Murdoch or Alan Greenspan to live in what it's now minimum wage, 12 hours a day, same healthcare benefits and days off as a waitress or any other unskilled worker, and pay rent, alimentation, transportation, leisure, etc. at the same prices as the capitalist market dictates.

This would be impossible to do within socialism.

[DDR]

This would be impossible to do within socialism.

It's a State, it could do almost as it pleases, through taxation, legislation, etc. It can be achieved in socialism, just at it is in capitalism, just have to legislate them with their own rules. You can condemn people to jail, or communitary services, why can you condemn anyone to a job with capitalist conditions, and especial taxation to achieve the desired prices for them? It can be done.

[Fourth Internationalist]

why can you condemn anyone to a job with capitalist conditions, and especial taxation to achieve the desired prices for them? It can be done.

Wouldn't forcing someone to live and buy things like a lower-class worker in capitalism require capitalism, not socialism? Unless the DotP is somehow capitalist, not socialist? (Wouldn't that be impossible?)

[DDR]

Wouldn't forcing someone to live and buy things like a lower-class worker in capitalism require capitalism, not socialism? Unless the DotP is somehow capitalist, not socialist? (Wouldn't that be impossible?)

They are serving a sentence, they are paying for a crime, I wouldn't expect thay they have any privileges in the socialist organization of the working place, no vote, no saying. The factory, shop, workshop, etc. can still be in workers control. What porcentage of population represents the big bugeoise? 1%? 2%? If such small percentage doesn't control the means of production one cannot say that socialism has been achieved?

[Fourth Internationalist]

They are serving a sentence, they are paying for a crime, I wouldn't expect thay they have any privileges in the socialist organization of the working place, no vote, no saying. The factory, shop, workshop, etc. can still be in workers control. What porcentage of population represents the big bugeoise? 1%? 2%? If such small percentage doesn't control the means of production one cannot say that socialism has been achieved?


and especial taxation to achieve the desired prices for them?

Force Glen Beck, Ruper Murdoch or Alan Greenspan to live in what it's now minimum wage

and pay rent, alimentation, transportation, leisure, etc. at the same prices as the capitalist market dictates.

As far as I know, those do not exist in a socialist economy?

[ind_com]

Is this a universal view to all Maoists? I pretty much don't really mind Maoism, Marxism-Leninism, or any other tendency's views, ideas, etc. at all except for their favorable views on what I would consider non-proletarian dictatorships.

I can't speak for all Maoists, but it has been the official view of every Maoist party that has waged armed struggle.

[DDR]

As far as I know, those do not exist in a socialist economy?

USSR, GDR, Cuba, etc. had those things, other thing is that you could argue that they are not socialist, but that's another debate that doesn't have to do with this one. Nor was the one about gulags and punishments, I know...

[Fourth Internationalist]

Nor was the one about gulags and punishments, I know...
I don't understand what you mean here.

[DDR]

I don't understand what you mean here.

That I derrailed enough this thread with the "gulags" and I don't want to derrail it further with the endless debate of what is a socialist state.

[Blake's Baby]

This would be impossible to do within socialism.


As far as I know, those do not exist in a socialist economy?


Wouldn't forcing someone to live and buy things like a lower-class worker in capitalism require capitalism, not socialism? Unless the DotP is somehow capitalist, not socialist? (Wouldn't that be impossible?)



As this thread was started by someone claiming to be a Trotskyist who thinks that 'socialism' existed in the Soviet Union (by which he means the DotP), having been asked for clarification of terms by someone for whom 'socialism' = 'communism', and is being conducted by Maoists (who seem to believe that socialism = the DotP) then if you use the word 'socialism' it's probably best if you explain what you mean by it. Do you mean a synonym for 'communism'? Do you mean 'the lower phase of communism'? Do you mean the DotP?

And yes, the DotP is capitalism, it isn't 'impossible', it's impossible for it to be anything else. Communism cannot be established in one country; and if there is a revolutionary transformation of capitalist society into communist society, while a political phase of the DotP that corresponds to the economic transformation, then that phase of the DotP must begin in capitalism; once the transformation is complete (finished), then communist society begins. So that transformative period must be capitalism - in the process of becomming something else.

[Fourth Internationalist]

As this thread was started by someone claiming to be a Trotskyist who thinks that 'socialism' existed in the Soviet Union (by which he means the DotP), having been asked for clarification of terms by someone for whom 'socialism' = 'communism', and is being conducted by Maoists (who seem to believe that socialism = the DotP) then if you use the word 'socialism' it's probably best if you explain what you mean by it. Do you mean a synonym for 'communism'? Do you mean 'the lower phase of communism'? Do you mean the DotP?

And yes, the DotP is capitalism, it isn't 'impossible', it's impossible for it to be anything else. Communism cannot be established in one country; and if there is a revolutionary transformation of capitalist society into communist society, while a political phase of the DotP that corresponds to the economic transformation, then that phase of the DotP must begin in capitalism; once the transformation is complete (finished), then communist society begins. So that transformative period must be capitalism - in the process of becomming something else.

I consider the DotP to be socialist, meaning wokers' ownership of production, but not communist, which is stateless. I do not believe there are prices, wages, etc. in socialism/DotP. So, that is why I think it is impossible to make former capitalists live with minumum wage, etc.

[Ismail]

The dictatorship of the proletariat refers to control over the state. It obviously doesn't equate with socialism otherwise Lenin and Stalin would have had no need to discuss the construction of socialism. I haven't seen Soviet materials (pre- or post-1956) claim this either, nor Chinese or Albanian materials. Its source seems to a lack of theoretical knowledge.

The socialist sector of the economy grows under the leadership of the dictatorship of the proletariat expressed through its vanguard, the trade unions, organs of state power, etc. It thus displaces other sectors in the economy such as petty trade, artisan production, and private property in general.

For instance, when Lenin spoke about the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, he noted that it was not literally "socialist," but was aspiring towards socialism. I can see some people getting confused about this, and that's probably why Lenin had to note that.

[Fourth Internationalist]

The dictatorship of the proletariat refers to control over the state. It obviously doesn't equate with socialism otherwise Lenin and Stalin would have had no need to discuss the construction of socialism. I haven't seen Soviet materials (pre- or post-1956) claim this either, nor Chinese or Albanian materials. Its source seems to a lack of theoretical knowledge.

The socialist sector of the economy grows under the leadership of the dictatorship of the proletariat expressed through its vanguard, the trade unions, organs of state power, etc. It thus displaces other sectors in the economy such as petty trade, artisan production, and private property in general.

For instance, when Lenin spoke about the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, he noted that it was not literally "socialist," but was aspiring towards socialism. I can see some people getting confused about this, and that's probably why Lenin had to note that.

If the working class doesn't have control of production aka socialism, how could they have their "dictatorship"?

[LOLseph Stalin]

I don't consider the DotP capitalist to whoever brought that up. That is after capitalism has already been overthrown so obviously it'll cease existing in that particular country.

[Blake's Baby]

Capitalism doesn't cease to exist in a particuar country. Capitalism is a world system. Abolishing capitalism in one country is like cutting someone's finger off and claiming that you've killed them. 'Death in one finger' is no more death than 'socialism in one country' is socialism.

And you can all call the DotP 'socialism' as far as I'm concerned, but you have to be aware that if you use that term to the majority of us, we will think you mean a post-capitalist society (ie, that socialism is different to capitalism), not the final phase of capitalism. Just warning you that you have to make your terms clear if you're going to use the same words as other people but for different concepts (strikes me if it's easier if you use 'DotP' for the DotP, but maybe that's just me).

[Fourth Internationalist]

Abolishing capitalism in one country is like cutting someone's finger off and claiming that you've killed them. 'Death in one finger' is no more death than 'socialism in one country' is socialism.
Socialism in one country does not claim it has killed capitalism globally, only a part of it i.e. in one country (any body part for your metaphor). If capitalism is the body, then why would cutting off a piece of it be impossible?


And you can all call the DotP 'socialism' as far as I'm concerned, but you have to be aware that if you use that term to the majority of us, we will think you mean a post-capitalist society (ie, that socialism is different to capitalism), not the final phase of capitalism. How can their be a dictatorship of the proletariat if the proletariat doesn't control production? The workers' control of production is socialism, yet that is not found even in their own dictatorship? That's not a workers' dictatorship if they don't even control their own production.

[Parvati]

I'm referring to older posts in this thread, but I'm not in favor of divisions like "Orthodox maoism", or "Anarcho-Maoism", since the references are texts from a Comrade of the CPI (maoist-naxalbari), which is supported by major Maoist organizations in the world, or more generally to the work of UJCML/Gauche Prolétarienne in France (late 60's early 70's) which were activists maoists in an Imperialist country but with no reference to anarchism, or whatever other theories than Marxism and mass line.

For Mauve, only a few documents are available in English, most of them are in French, however, I've translated some (since I am generally fan of their work)_

[Ismail]

Capitalism doesn't cease to exist in a particuar country. Capitalism is a world system. Abolishing capitalism in one country is like cutting someone's finger off and claiming that you've killed them. 'Death in one finger' is no more death than 'socialism in one country' is socialism.That is why the class struggle continues under socialism and intensifies, as Stalin pointed out, something attacked by the Soviet revisionists and more or less disputed by the Maoists. Economically and culturally, capitalism seeks to reassert itself with the all-sided assistance of international capitalism.

As for your analogy, you also forget that someone cut off the finger; presumably he is in a position to attempt cutting off more, and then blood loss results. I don't know about you, but a finger that's cut off is already a serious health hazard. Certainly the capitalist powers were afraid of the victorious October revolution.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Capitalism doesn't cease to exist in a particuar country. Capitalism is a world system. Abolishing capitalism in one country is like cutting someone's finger off and claiming that you've killed them. 'Death in one finger' is no more death than 'socialism in one country' is socialism.

It does cease to exist in that particular country if they're no longer using the capitalist means of production. Going by your logic the USSR would have been capitalist, and it clearly wasn't. Obviously I'm an advocate of world revolution, but as we know it can't all happen simultaneously.


And you can all call the DotP 'socialism' as far as I'm concerned, but you have to be aware that if you use that term to the majority of us, we will think you mean a post-capitalist society (ie, that socialism is different to capitalism), not the final phase of capitalism. Just warning you that you have to make your terms clear if you're going to use the same words as other people but for different concepts (strikes me if it's easier if you use 'DotP' for the DotP, but maybe that's just me).Obviously you have quite a different definition of DotP than I do then, as has been pointed out in other threads as well. I think this is one reason why different tendencies will never unite, because of petty disputes over semantics like this one.

[Blake's Baby]

It does cease to exist in that particular country if they're no longer using the capitalist means of production. Going by your logic the USSR would have been capitalist, and it clearly wasn't...

Except, it obviously was as the USSR used capitalist production - wage labour to produce commodities - and also it wasn't under the control of the proletariat (so it wasn't 'socialist' in the definition of those who think the DotP is 'socialist' because it wasn't the dictatorship of the proletariat).


...Obviously I'm an advocate of world revolution, but as we know it can't all happen simultaneously...

Non-sequiteur, verging on a strawman. No one has said that the political takeover by the working class is simultaneous.

The working class takes power in a particular place - as in Russia in 1917. It hopes the working class will soon take power in other places - such as Germany and Hungary. These historical examples serve to illustrate the point. Maybe the working class does, or maybe it doesn't - the issue is what happens in the revolutionary territory in the short term, before the world revolution is completed, not whether the world revolution ever is completed within the cycle of a revolutionary wave (eg 1917-27).

Capitalism must be abolished as a world system. Until the working class has completed its political revolution against capitalism it can't abolish it, because it can't abolish what it doesn't control. If you think it can, I urge you to just do it. Abolish capitalism now, from behind your desk, and we can all get on with living in communism. If you believe it's possible, there's no reason not to just do it.


...Obviously you have quite a different definition of DotP than I do then, as has been pointed out in other threads as well. I think this is one reason why different tendencies will never unite, because of petty disputes over semantics like this one.

It's not a 'semantic' point, if you think socialism is the DotP (a question of terminology, which makes incomprehension more likely, but essentially a semantic question), but also that the DotP is not capitalist (a difference of how we understand revolutionary process that no handwavium about semantics will clear up), that involves massively different ways of looking at the world. You think it is possible to abolish capitalism in a single place, which means that you must believe it is possible to set up a post-capitalist society (that I call 'socialism') in one country. You however reject 'socialism in one country' which seems to mean, you reject the DotP in one country. I reject 'socialism in one country' because it means 'communism in one country'. I do not reject the DotP in one country; the DotP is for one country, initially, as it is the revolutionary expropriation of the capitalists in a place - which doesn't mean the end of capitalism as a world system. Because capitalism is wage labour and commodity production, not top-hats and moustaches, or even individual ownership of the means of production (or, as Engels pointed out in 1890, joint-stock companies would be a kind of socialism).

So, yes, these are more than semantic arguments.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I reject 'socialism in one country' because it means 'communism in one country'.

Why do you think communism and socialism are the same thing? They are two different words with two different definitions for a reason.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Why do you think communism and socialism are the same thing? They are two different words with two different definitions for a reason.

depends on who you ask. Marx/Engels used them interchangeably, and I see no reason to do otherwise, as it opens for a whole lot of problems around terminology, as this thread quite clearly shows.

[Fourth Internationalist]

depends on who you ask. Marx/Engels used them interchangeably, and I see no reason to do otherwise, as it opens for a whole lot of problems around terminology, as this thread quite clearly shows.

They were alive in the 1800's, words change. Any modern dictionary clearly has two different definitions.

[Zukunftsmusik]

They were alive in the 1800's, words change. Any modern dictionary clearly has two different definitions.

Any modern dictionary would probably tell you that socialism is equivalent to typical "left" social democratic parties, do you follow that definition?

The point is that socialism/communism were interchangeable until Stalin's "theory" of socialism in one country. This "theory" is clearly linked to the failing of the European revolution and USSR's plunge back into world capitalist relations; namely, it's not a theory at all, it's an ideology in the Marxist sense. To accept ideological ("mystifying") terms as a Marxist is honestly quite odd. Doesn't stop a lot of 'Marxists' from doing so, though, obviously.

There is no reason to differentiate between socialism and communism, and by doing so you buy into ideologies that should have died ages ago, and end up with a problem explaining what is what, where capitalism ends and where communism begins etc, as Blake's Baby has pointed out.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

this is why I´ve stopped using the term "socialism" alltogether.

[Blake's Baby]

They were alive in the 1800's, words change. Any modern dictionary clearly has two different definitions.

Why should I allow the word 'socialist' to be defined by people who don't know what it means? I'm a Marxist, I'll generally follow Marx's terminology when talking about the things Marx was wring about.

Of course language changes, otherwise we'd all be speaking Old English or possibly grunting. But it doesn't change all at once. We're putting you on notice that in attempting to re-define what 'socialism' is, some of us are going to continue using it the same way as it has traditionally been used in the socialist movement. It's hard to understand Marx and Engels if you apply your definitions to the words they used, rather than their definitions. Redefining words that other people are using, or referring to words written with one definition as if they have a different definition, is problematic. It's the 'how many times does Sherlock Holmes ejaculate?' problem. When the books were written, 'ejaculate' (generally) meant 'suddenly shout out'. Now it doesn't. Doe we assume that in fact Conan Doyle wanted us to think that Holmes and Watson were engaged in frequent public masturbatory exercises? No. We stick with the definition of the word that Conan Doyle was using. Likewise, attempting to understand what Marx and Engels were saying without defining their words in the same way is extremely problematic.

For instance - this keeps coming up - the famous passage from section 4 of the Critique of the Gotha Programme.

"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."

Now, if you posit that 'socialism' comes before 'communism' and have therefore redefined Marx's terms, the 'socialism' must be = to the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. However, understanding that Marx meant "Between capitalist and communist (also known as socialist) society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other (which must be the final phase of capitalism as a thing must transform from what it is to what it is not). Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat (in which the proletariat, starting with capitalism, transform it into what it is not)".

There is a recent thread about all this: http://www.revleft.com/vb/confusing-dotp-socialism-t178711/index.html?t=178711&highlight=gotha

[Ismail]

Because capitalism is wage labour and commodity production, not top-hats and moustaches, or even individual ownership of the means of production (or, as Engels pointed out in 1890, joint-stock companies would be a kind of socialism).Lenin and Stalin noted that commodity production and wages assumed new characteristics under socialism. Of course both also noted that commodity production is a remnant of capitalism and would have to be overcome, as Stalin in particular suggested be carried out in the countryside shortly before his death.

Stalin discussed the role of commodities under socialism in his final work, Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.: http://marx2mao.com/Stalin/EPS52.html

This work was, of course, attacked after his death by the Soviet revisionists, who called him "dogmatic" and instead claimed that commodity production should be increased under socialism and that they more or less lost any status as a vestige of capitalism to be phased out through the further construction of socialism and communism.

The Engels quote 'bout joint-stock companies was used many times by anti-revisionists throughout the 60's-80's to demonstrate the fallacy many were peddling in their apologias for the Soviet revisionists, namely that state ownership somehow automatically implied "proletarian" ownership.

[Blake's Baby]

Lenin and Stalin noted that commodity production and wages assumed new characteristics under socialism...

This sentence is meaningless unless you say what you think 'socialism' means. For those of us who think it means 'communism' it's obviously rubbish. So, try defining 'socialism' here and there might be a point to discuss.

Commodity production and wage labour are capitalism. If you are arguing that the working class can take over a country and run capitalism (state capitalism, that is) under the dictatorship of the proletariat (while waiting for the world revolution) I think I'd agree (though I would under no circumstances call it 'socialism'). The argument is then how long this proletarian state capitalism can survive without the world revolution, how fast it degenerates, before the state itself is the site of a counter-revolutionary coup by the ruling party, who then become a capitalist class. History says about 2 years.


...The Engels quote 'bout joint-stock companies was used many times by anti-revisionists throughout the 60's-80's to demonstrate the fallacy many were peddling in their apologias for the Soviet revisionists, namely that state ownership somehow automatically implied "proletarian" ownership.

Just thought I'd leave this here.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Any modern dictionary would probably tell you that socialism is equivalent to typical "left" social democratic parties, do you follow that definition?

No, they do not.

so·cial·ism

noun \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\


Definition of SOCIALISM

1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2
a : a system of society (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/society) or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3
: a stage of society in Marxist (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Marxism) theory transitional between capitalism (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism) and communism (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism) and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done




There is no reason to differentiate between socialism and communism,

Yes, there is. Many socialists are not communists, even in Marx's time. Those socialists believed in socialism, but not communism. Socialism has always been a broader term that included communists, but were not necessarily communists. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communist.


and end up with a problem explaining what is what, where capitalism ends and where communism begins etc,

Capitalism ends, and socialism begins, when the proletariat has control over the means of production and that production is not profit-based. Communism begins after socialism is global and all states have been abolished. Quite simple.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Why should I allow the word 'socialist' to be defined by people who don't know what it means? I'm a Marxist, I'll generally follow Marx's terminology when talking about the things Marx was wring about.Marx is not the author of the English language. The term socialism was used before him, and it did not mean communism. No one else but some Marxists try to define socialism as the same thing as communism.


We're putting you on notice that in attempting to re-define what 'socialism' is,I am not, it's already been the way I am defining since before Marx.


some of us are going to continue using it the same way as it has traditionally been used in the socialist movement.Good, so stop saying it is communism.


It's hard to understand Marx and Engels if you apply your definitions to the words they used, rather than their definitions. No one is saying Marx and Engels didn't use that definition. We know what they meant when they used socialism interchangeably with communism. It doesn't mean we should when not reading their works.


Redefining words that other people are using, or referring to words written with one definition as if they have a different definition, is problematic. No one, or at least me, is doing that.


It's the 'how many times does Sherlock Holmes ejaculate?' problem. When the books were written, 'ejaculate' (generally) meant 'suddenly shout out'. Now it doesn't. Doe we assume that in fact Conan Doyle wanted us to think that Holmes and Watson were engaged in frequent public masturbatory exercises? No. We stick with the definition of the word that Conan Doyle was using. Likewise, attempting to understand what Marx and Engels were saying without defining their words in the same way is extremely problematic.Yes, read their words as they defined them. However, don't use that definition outside of their works, or else everyone will think you're crazy when you say "He ejaculated at me!" or "He ejaculated quite loudly!"


For instance - this keeps coming up - the famous passage from section 4 of the Critique of the Gotha Programme.

"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."How can the proletariat have a dictatorship if they can't even control production?


Now, if you posit that 'socialism' comes before 'communism' and have therefore redefined Marx's terms, the 'socialism' must be = to the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. It is. The proletariat needs to control production if they're going to have a dictatorship. How they can have a dictatorship but not control production boggles my mind.

[Blake's Baby]

...
How can the proletariat have a dictatorship if they can't even control production?
It is. The proletariat needs to control production if they're going to have a dictatorship. How they can have a dictatorship but not control production boggles my mind.

Who says they can't control production? I don't even understand the premises of your qusestion.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Who says they can't control production? I don't even understand the premises of your qusestion.

Socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods.

[Blake's Baby]

Socialism is a classless communal society without money or states.

Your move.

What does this have to do with why you think the proletariat is incapable of controlling production?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Socialism is a classless communal society without money or states.


so·cial·ism

noun \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Definition of SOCIALISM

1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2
a : a system of society (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/society) or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3
: a stage of society in Marxist (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Marxism) theory transitional between capitalism (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism) and communism (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism) and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done




What does this have to do with why you think the proletariat is incapable of controlling production?

I'm saying the exact opposite.

[Blake's Baby]

I'm saying the exact opposite.


...
How can the proletariat have a dictatorship if they can't even control production?
... How they can have a dictatorship but not control production boggles my mind.

No you're not. You're directly contradicting yourself. So, try to explain what your question is.

[Fourth Internationalist]

How can the proletariat have a dictatorship if they can't even control production?

How they can have a dictatorship but not control production boggles my mind.


No you're not. You're directly contradicting yourself. So, try to explain what your question is.

The first was a question to you. Because socialism is the collective/workers' control of production, and you say socialism and the dotp are not the same thing, I am curious as to why you believe they don't control production under their own dictatorship.

My second statement is about the fact that, according to your way of thinking, the proletariat are not in control of production, i.e. not socialist, in their own dictatorship. That boggles my mind that people, like you, believe that is possible.

I am not contradicting myself, you are just reading my statements incorrectly.

[Ismail]

The dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism are not the same thing. No one believes this except some misinformed people on RevLeft.

For the benefit of MLs, I now manually type from a 1952 pamphlet (The USSR: 100 Questions Answered):


99. - What is the dictatorship of the proletariat?

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the State power of the working class that is established in a country after the overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie. It continues throughout the period of the transition of society from capitalism to communism. During this transition period the working class, which is at the helm of State power, performs the following tasks:

1. It suppresses the overthrown exploiting classes in their attempts to re-establish their power, and it organises the country's defence so as to protect it from sudden attacks on the part of capitalist states.
2. It establishes and consolidates the friendly alliance with the working peasantry and other masses exploited under capitalism, drawing these masses into the work of building socialist society, exercising State guidance of these masses, enlisting them to take an active part in administering the country and educating them in the spirit of socialism.
3. It organises the planned development of the national economy, completely eliminates the exploiting classes and the capitalist elements in the national economy, works to carry through the complete victory of socialism in every sphere of life, and effects the transition to the classless communist society (see answer No. 100).

The dictatorship of the proletariat continues to exist in communist society as long as, side by side with it, capitalist countries continue to exist. The dictatorship of the proletariat (State power) will disappear when the capitalist encirclement is completely replaced by a socialist encirclement.

The State form of the dictatorship of the proletariat is not uniform. In the Soviet Union it takes the form of Soviet power (the power of the Soviets of Working People's Deputies). After the Second World War, States of proletarian dictatorship arose in Central and South-Eastern Europe (Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Rumania and Czechoslovakia). In these countries the dictatorship of the proletariat takes the form of governments of people's democracy. In both the Soviet Union and the people's democracies, the leading role in the State belongs to the working class, as the foremost class in society. The highest principle of dictatorship of the proletariat is the alliance between the working class and the peasantry, with the working class in the leading role. The leading and directing force in the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat is the vanguard of the working class: the Communist Party in the U.S.S.R., and the communist and Marxist workers' parties in the people's democracies.

The leading role of the communist and Marxist workers' parties has, by the will of the people, been given legislative embodiment and secured to them in the Constitution of the U.S.S.R. and the Constitutions of the people's democracies.

100. - What is communism?

The Soviet people have built up socialism and are now in the period of gradual transition to communism. What is communism, and in what way does it differ from socialism?

The teaching of the founders of scientific communism, Marx and Engels, a teaching developed comprehensively by V.I. Lenin and J.V. Stalin, propounds that socialism and communism are the two phases, two stages of development, of one and the same social system: communist society.

Socialism is the first (lower) stage; and communism is the second (higher) stage of communist society. While socialism and communism have much in common, there is, nevertheless, a difference between them. The following features are common to both socialism and communism:

Under both socialism and communism the economic foundation of society is the public ownership of the instruments and means of production and an integrated socialist system of economy. There are no contradictions between the productive forces and the relations of production; there is complete conformity between them. Neither under socialism nor communism is there social oppression. There are no exploiting classes, no exploitation of many by man, and no national oppression. Under both socialism and communism the national economy is developed according to plan, and there are neither economic crises, nor unemployment and poverty among the masses. Under both socialism and communism everyone is equally bound to work according to his ability.

What then, is the difference between communism and socialism?

Socialist society affords full play for the development of the productive forces. The level reached by socialist production makes it possible for society to give effect to the principle: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work." This means that the products are distributed in accordance with the quantity and quality of the work performed. In communist society, however, the productive forces will reach an incomparably higher level of development than under socialism. The national economy will develop on the foundation of a higher technique, the production processes will be mechanised and automatised in an all-round way, and people will extensively utilise every source of energy.

The higher level of technique and productivity of labour will ensure an abundance of all consumer goods and all material and cultural wealth. This abundance of products will make it possible to meet fully the needs of all members of communist society. Social life under communism, therefore, will be guided by the principle: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Ignoramuses and enemies of communism assert that under communism there will be a levelling of the tastes and needs of all people. This is slandering communism, for tastes and needs of people are not and cannot be the same or alike in quality or quantity, either under socialism or communism. Under communism there will be an all-round and full satisfaction of every demand of civilised people.

Under socialism there are still the working classes—the workers and peasants—and the intelligentsia, among whom there remains a difference. Under communism there will be no class differences, and the entire people will become working folk of a united, classless communist society. Under socialism there still exists a distinction between town and country. Under communism there will be no essential distinction between town and country, that is, between industry and agriculture. Under socialism there still exists an essential distinction between mental and manual labour, because the cultural and technical standards of the workers and peasants are not yet high enough. Under communism this distinction will disappear, for the cultural and technical standard of all working people will reach the standard of engineers and technicians.

Under socialism there still exist the survivals of capitalism in the minds of some members of society (indifference towards work, a tendency to take all you can get from society while giving as little as you can get away with, etc.). Under communism all survivals of capitalism will disappear. Under communism work is no longer merely a means of livelihood, but man's primary need in life.The Soviet Union wasn't able to plan its economy on a truly national scale until the late 20's. Throughout that same decade private capital had a significant role in said economy. Socialist economy did exist, but it existed alongside other forms of economy. It did not triumph until the 30's.

Whole thing here: http://sovietlibrary.org/Library/Union%20of%20Soviet%20Socialist%20Republics/1952_The%20USSR_100%20Questions%20Answered_Soviet% 20News_1952.pdf

On the construction of communism in the USSR see: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv3n1/gosplan.htm

[Blake's Baby]

The first was a question to you. Because socialism is the collective/workers' control of production, and you say socialism and the dotp are not the same thing, I am curious as to why you believe they don't control production under their own dictatorship...

Because socialism is a classless communal society, and workers do control production under the DotP, I wonder what you're talking about.


...My second statement is about the fact that, according to your way of thinking, the proletariat are not in control of production, i.e. not socialist, in their own dictatorship. That boggles my mind that people, like you, believe that is possible...

No, it is about the fact that you're so hung up on your non-Marxist definition of the word 'socialism' that you've even confused yourself. 'My way of thinking' has nothing to do with what you've presented.


...I am not contradicting myself, you are just reading my statements incorrectly.

I'm not reading them incorrectly, you're just incapable of explaining them.

So, take a deep breath and try to explain, clearly, what you are asking, and I will try to explain, clearly, what the answer is.

[Fourth Internationalist]

The dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism are not the same thing.

How can the proletariat have a dictatorship without socialism? That's quite a weak dictatorship, then.


Because socialism is a classless communal society, and workers do control production under the DotP, I wonder what you're talking about.

Did you not see the definition from Merriam-Webster that I posted twice?


No, it is about the fact that you're so hung up on your non-Marxist definition of the word 'socialism' that you've even confused yourself. 'My way of thinking' has nothing to do with what you've presented.

The dictionary is a better source of definitions than your opinion of what the Marxist definition is.


I'm not reading them incorrectly, you're just incapable of explaining them.

So, take a deep breath and try to explain, clearly, what you are asking, and I will try to explain, clearly, what the answer is.

I explained them quite well enough. Socialism is the workers' control of production and distribution. You say there is not socialism in the dotp. That is not possible. However, you say they do have control over production, which is socialism. Most people are not Karl Marx, thus, to use socialism interchangeably with communism is quite stupid, knowing that many socialists and advocates of socialism do not believe in communism. Socialism has been used to mean the collective production and distribution of goods before, during, and after Marx. The world is not Marxist, and Marx using those words as the same thing was a mistake.

[ind_com]

Most people are not Karl Marx, thus, to use socialism interchangeably with communism is quite stupid, knowing that many socialists and advocates of socialism do not believe in communism.

Do all advocates of socialism believe in DotP?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Do all advocates of socialism believe in DotP?

No, why?

[ind_com]

No, why?

Because then we can't use the terms DotP and socialism interchangeably. Furthermore, if we acknowledge all the definitions of socialism that are floating around, then even Democrats should be called socialists.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Because then we can't use the terms DotP and socialism interchangeably. Furthermore, if we acknowledge all the definitions of socialism that are floating around, then even Democrats should be called socialists.

I know, most of the time, we shouldn't use them interchangably. Socialism is just a necessary characteristic of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Also, we don't need to acknowledge all the definitions (hence why I am attacking one if them). The dictionary gives quite a clear definition that is not communist nor Democratic (of the Democrat Party).

[ind_com]

I know, most of the time, we shouldn't use them interchangably. Socialism is just a necessary characteristic of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Also, we don't need to acknowledge all the definitions (hence why I am attacking one if them). The dictionary gives quite a clear definition that is not communist nor Democratic (of the Democrat Party).

Okay, but still I think that it is good to acknowledge only the Marxist definitions of socialism, because other models of socialism have not been implemented at any scale comparable to our socialist states of the last century. There are non-Marxist definitions of communism as well, but we usually don't acknowledge them due to similar reasons.

[DasFapital]

You don't get it, this isn't a physical gulag, it's a practical one. They have only experienced capitalism in one side of the table, let the try the other side. Force Glen Beck, Ruper Murdoch or Alan Greenspan to live in what it's now minimum wage, 12 hours a day, same healthcare benefits and days off as a waitress or any other unskilled worker, and pay rent, alimentation, transportation, leisure, etc. at the same prices as the capitalist market dictates. It's more moral than forced labor (and more practical),absolutely more than firing squads, plus no capitalist nation could say a word against this practice.
ummm...Glenn Beck came from a working class background. I doubt doing this would change his mind.

[Blake's Baby]

How can the proletariat have a dictatorship without socialism? That's quite a weak dictatorship, then...

How can the working class institute socialism, given that socialism is classless?


...
Did you not see the definition from Merriam-Webster that I posted twice?...

Did you not notice I don't care about definitions of socialism from non-socialists?



...
The dictionary is a better source of definitions than your opinion of what the Marxist definition is...

No, really it isn't.


...
I explained them quite well enough. Socialism is the workers' control of production and distribution. You say there is not socialism in the dotp. That is not possible. However, you say they do have control over production, which is socialism. Most people are not Karl Marx, thus, to use socialism interchangeably with communism is quite stupid, knowing that many socialists and advocates of socialism do not believe in communism. Socialism has been used to mean the collective production and distribution of goods before, during, and after Marx. The world is not Marxist, and Marx using those words as the same thing was a mistake.

Obviously, you're entitled to hold whatever opinions you like. However, I don't have to take any notice of them.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Okay, but still I think that it is good to acknowledge only the Marxist definitions of socialism, because other models of socialism have not been implemented at any scale comparable to our socialist states of the last century. There are non-Marxist definitions of communism as well, but we usually don't acknowledge them due to similar reasons.

I would certainly prefer the Marxist definition. However, many communists use that definition with others who are not communist, so it is confusing and unnecessary.


Did you not notice I don't care about definitions of socialism from non-socialists?

A fascist, racist, homophobe, etc. could say the same thing about facism, racism, or homophobia. Also, many socialists that aren't communist do use that definition.


Obviously, you're entitled to hold whatever opinions you like. However, I don't have to take any notice of them.

It's not my opinion.

[Comrade #138672]

How can the proletariat have a dictatorship without socialism? That's quite a weak dictatorship, then.


Did you not see the definition from Merriam-Webster that I posted twice?



The dictionary is a better source of definitions than your opinion of what the Marxist definition is.


I explained them quite well enough. Socialism is the workers' control of production and distribution. You say there is not socialism in the dotp. That is not possible. However, you say they do have control over production, which is socialism. Most people are not Karl Marx, thus, to use socialism interchangeably with communism is quite stupid, knowing that many socialists and advocates of socialism do not believe in communism. Socialism has been used to mean the collective production and distribution of goods before, during, and after Marx. The world is not Marxist, and Marx using those words as the same thing was a mistake.Socialism doesn't come falling out of the sky. It needs to be developed by the DotP.

[Blake's Baby]

...

A fascist, racist, homophobe, etc. could say the same thing about facism, racism, or homophobia...

And were I a fascist, and you a fascist, then we could argue about whether 'fascism' was 'the political philosophy elaborated by Benito Mussolini' (= my claim) or 'being a bit nasty to people' (= your claim).


... Also, many socialists that aren't communist do use that definition...

The idea that there are 'socialists' who are not 'communists' is like the idea that there are 'airline pilots' who are not 'trained airline pilots'. Socialism isn't a matter of wishing. to be a socialist is to have at least in outline an approach to how the new society is to be created. Without communism (whether that's Marxism or Anarchism) there is no 'socialism'. The Owenites and Fourirists died out before 1848.

[Fourth Internationalist]

You seem to know little about non-communist socialism for someone so against it.

[Blake's Baby]

Oh, OK.

One can call oneself God's Announted. Doesn't make it true, as there is no god. One can call oneself a socialist. Doesn't make it true, as there is no way of transcending capitalism except through revolution.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Oh, OK.

One can call oneself God's Announted. Doesn't make it true, as there is no god. One can call oneself a socialist. Doesn't make it true, as there is no way of transcending capitalism except through revolution.

Marx's definition of socialism is not the universal definition of socialism as he did not invent the term socialist nor its fundamental ideas. It was there before him.

[Blake's Baby]

Don't really care. We're discussing Marxism, and I'm a Marxist. Therefore, I'm quite happy with Marx's definitions, thanks. Not Webster's. If we were discussing Websterism, and I a Websterist, you can bet your ass (or any other kind of donkey-like creature you have) that I would be insisting on Websterist definition.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Don't really care. We're discussing Marxism, and I'm a Marxist. Therefore, I'm quite happy with Marx's definitions, thanks. Not Webster's. If we were discussing Websterism, and I a Websterist, you can bet your ass (or any other kind of donkey-like creature you have) that I would be insisting on Websterist definition.

We're discussing socialism, not Marxism. Anyways, that doesn't mean you shouldn't recognise that most others don't share your definition.

Merriam-Webster was the name of the dictionary, not an ideology.

[Blake's Baby]

Good lord, did you have to hand your sense of humour/adventure in when you joined the party? I know who Noah Webster was. And I know that 'Websterism' has been coined as synonym for spelling reform (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Websterism) and thus can be regarded as an ideology (or at least political position). Did the fact that made an ass/arse joke (hey, look, Americans and Brits sometime have a different spelling for the same words - and that might sometimes cause confusion, with hilarious consequences) not tip you off that I might have known what I was talking about?

Nobody in Britain takes Webster's dictionary seriously, by the way. If you want to make a point of definition to a Brit, much better to use the Oxford, or Collins at a push.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Anyway, back at the farm, about 100 years ago there was a discussion about the DotP. Anyone still care about that?

Several things have come up to the front of my consciousness here. Does anyone, for instance, think that under the DotP the working class will not be an exploited class? If they do think that the working class will somehow not be exploited, then who is going to do the necessary work that will allow all the sick, the children and the elderly to survive? Someone has to do it. There isn't another class waiting in the historical wings for the proletariat to exploit (and if we did, we'd give up being proletarians and become bourgoises instead... red bourgeoises...) so what class will be the exploited class under the DotP, if not the working class?

[LOLseph Stalin]

Alright, I need to ask. What is the difference between Maoism and Mao Zedong Thought?

[ind_com]

Alright, I need to ask. What is the difference between Maoism and Mao Zedong Thought?

In the words of the CPI(Maoist), "Though in our understanding there is no distinction between MLM Thought and MLM and no Chinese Wall can separate the two, we have adopted Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as a new, third and qualitatively higher stage because it is more scientific and appropriate."

By using the term Maoism instead of Mao Zedong Thought, we emphasize on the fact that it is not merely the implementation of Marxism-Leninism in the concrete conditions of China, but a qualitative development over Marxism-Leninism, being developed even today.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Does anyone, for instance, think that under the DotP the working class will not be an exploited class?

How can they be both the ruling class and the exploited class?

[Ismail]

How can they be both the ruling class and the exploited class?I'd love to see Blake's Baby quote Marx or Engels (or Lenin, Luxemburg or any other Marxist) that the proletariat exploits itself under its own leadership.


If they do think that the working class will somehow not be exploited, then who is going to do the necessary work that will allow all the sick, the children and the elderly to survive? Someone has to do it. There isn't another class waiting in the historical wings for the proletariat to exploit (and if we did, we'd give up being proletarians and become bourgoises instead... red bourgeoises...) so what class will be the exploited class under the DotP, if not the working class?A guy I know was looking at this thread and upon seeing this actually joked to me "UNDER COMMUNISM THE PROLETARIAT WILL BE EXPLOITED BY THE IDIOT-PENSIONER CLASS."

[Blake's Baby]

How can they be both the ruling class and the exploited class?

They can have political power but still need to provide the surplus labour necessary for society to function.

So, who will provide the necessary work under the DotP then? Care to answer that?

[Fourth Internationalist]

So, who will provide the necessary work under the DotP then? Care to answer that?

Everyone who is able to work will work, like in communism.

[Blake's Baby]

So what's the difference between the DotP and communism, then, do you think?

[$lim_$weezy]

You guys should uh, move past the semantics and talk about something else, perhaps. It doesn't really matter what you call it as long as it's clarified...

Maybe for the sake of this discussion, just make a trivial distinction and get on with it

[Fourth Internationalist]

So what's the difference between the DotP and communism, then, do you think?

The dotp is a state and is not global, whereas communism has no state and is global. Those are the two biggest differences I can think of right now.

[Blake's Baby]

But a 'socialist economy' is established in the territory of the DotP from day one? So, contra Marx, there isn't a period of transformation, just the immediate establishment of... socialism in one country?