Buck
3rd April 2013, 06:01
Hello, I am not a "leftist", but a Marxist. (The goal then for me is the establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community(stateless, classes, money-less, free association, voluntarily labor), which is socialism/communism). This definitively means that i am an anti-leninist or another branch of leninism(troksyism, stalinism, maoism), as these stances are inherently anti-markist, believing that the working class is too stupid to do anything other than make unions, needing an educated elite to rule them, in addition to the theory of "two stages", separating communism from socialism. This is clearly a break with marxism and markist thought. Was it not marx and engels who said this "When the International was formed we expressly formulated the battle cry: The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves. We cannot, therefore, co-operate with people who openly state that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must be freed from above by philanthropic big bourgeois and petty bourgeois," a clear if any clash between leninism and markism, thus making the term markist-leninist, a contradiction, just like calling a state socialist or communist. Any attempt to define any of the so called "socialist" states(state capitalist, capitialism, in a markist definition) as socialist, means you lack a fundamental understanding of markism. And to even suggest that Marx or Engels would have found them to be so would be a dubious statement at best.
A disclaimer: I am talking about socialism, in markist interpretations, so if you chose not to accept mark, the you are free to assign the definition of socialism to anything, be it Nazi German, The labor party, the USSR, Sweden, liberals, etc...
Before I go on to criticize other branches of the anti-markist leninism, I wish to define capitalism and other such words, like class, worker, capitalist etc.. because I have seen a lot of confusion and misunderstanding of these terms. Capitalism can be described as: A system of society based on the class monopoly of the means of life, it has the following six essential characteristics:
Generalised commodity production, nearly all wealth being produced for sale on a market.
The investment of capital in production with a view to obtaining a monetary profit.
The exploitation of wage labour, the source of profit being the unpaid labour of the producers.
The regulation of production by the market via a competitive struggle for profits.
The accumulation of capital out of profits, leading to the expansion and development of the forces of production.
A single world economy.
This is fundementally important to understand the current society and other so-called "socialist states" which are actually state capitalist.
State capitalism:
The wages system under new management. State ownership or nationalisation is not socialism, nor is it a step towards socialism. Capitalism is not just a particular form of property holding, but is essentially an impersonal economic mechanism; impersonal in the sense that it is a mechanism that operates independently of the will of people and imposes itself on them as an external force.
State capitalism and private capitalism have never existed as pure forms of society; every country has its own historically developed mix. But the main features of a model of state capitalism, drawn from historical examples, are as follows:
State ownership of the principal means of production
Generalised wage labour
Generalised use of money and money calculation
A relatively free market for consumer goods in the form of agricultural products and light industrial products
A market for means of production which is closely monitored by the state
Wide-scale planning activity, allocating supplies and directing products within the sphere of heavy industry, setting production targets, fixing prices and directing the flows of capital
A sizeable black-market.
Class is another definition that even self-proclaimed socialists are confused about, talking like politicians about a "middle" class. Class are determined by the relations to the mode of production: do you own or work? It doesn't matter how much money you make: income is irrelevant. If you define class by income, how do you determine who falls into what class? Does some one with 29,999 belong to a different class then someone with 30,000? That being said, workers, in the marxian definition, make up the vast majority of the populace. They work, but do not own; they are forced to sell their labor-power for a wage, in order to obtain subsistence. A capitalist, is someone then, who doesn't work, but owns, exploiting the worker, through the taking of his labor, in the shape of material or other goods, like a newscaster, an actor, a miner, factory worker, a doctor etc..., whose labor is taken by the capitalists. Or to put it in a more formal manner:
Capitalists personify capital. Because they possess the means of production and distribution, whether in the form of legal property rights of individuals backed by the state or collectively as a bureaucracy through the state, the capitalist class lives on privileged incomes derived from surplus value. The capitalists personally need not - and mostly do not - get involved in the process of production. Social production is carried on by capitalist enterprises which are overwhelmingly comprised of members of the working class.
Another gripe is with Trotsky/trotskyist. Trotskyist, to my knowledge, follow lenin's theories of vanguardism, democratic centralism, and transitional society. Although some agree with Mark on the definition of communism and socialism as the same thing. But He adds in the theory of permanent revolution and the ridiculous un-markist description of the USSR as a "degenerate workers state", in addition to suggesting that the revolution wouldnt have happened without lenin, a return to the great man theory of history, in addition to suggesting that socialism could suddenly be created in feudal Russia. Also how could a state be classified as a "workers state", much less one that massacred and enslaved them, even in Trotsky's time, with his direct supervision(Krondstadt, Red Terror)? The workers have no state other than the one imposed on them. Also the degenrate part dislpays the lack of knowledge by trotsky of marxism, by suggesting a separation of the superstructure from the base. These statements, by trotsky, demonstrate that Trosky truly didn't have/grasp an understanding of markism.
Stalinism/Maoism dont require any of my time critiquing them, as truly, no one can say them or their regimes had anything to do with markism or marxian socialism.
Another place for critique is this idea that welfare and Nationalization are socialist measures. I have already given a definition that dismisses these as a socialist society. They are just measures to reform/govern capitalism, and give it a "human face", to prevent real, marxian, socialism. These left wing and right wing policies have been used by regimes/administrations from Stalin and Lenin, to Hitler and Bismark. These measures were thought of by marx and Engels, because they didnt believe socialism could be created in 19th century Europe, at the time they wrote the manifesto 1848, in addition to calling for a lower stage communism, which would only be different from upstage communism by labor vouches to prevent shortages that may have existed in 19th century Europe.
Another misunderstanding that I have seen on multiple posts, and in the title of this forum, is the association of "left wing" with communism/socialism(they are the same thing in a market definition). To understand what I mean we only need I look back at the origin of this term. It originated with the seating of french rebulicans on the left and monarchist on the right. They are two parties trying to impose this idea of having/not having a monarch over the state. These terms only are a set of ideas on how to govern the superstructure of society, with the left advocating welfare, nationalization and the right, privatization, although these policies change from state to state. Socialism, is above this, it is a complete change of the "base" changing completely the mode of production, not a series of policies on superstructure governance. And this Socialism is not seen in any of those supposed "communist" states, besides the fact that a communist/socialist state is a contradiction, being that socialism is not a series of reforms involving nationalization and welfare.
A disclaimer: I am talking about socialism, in markist interpretations, so if you chose not to accept mark, the you are free to assign the definition of socialism to anything, be it Nazi German, The labor party, the USSR, Sweden, liberals, etc...
Before I go on to criticize other branches of the anti-markist leninism, I wish to define capitalism and other such words, like class, worker, capitalist etc.. because I have seen a lot of confusion and misunderstanding of these terms. Capitalism can be described as: A system of society based on the class monopoly of the means of life, it has the following six essential characteristics:
Generalised commodity production, nearly all wealth being produced for sale on a market.
The investment of capital in production with a view to obtaining a monetary profit.
The exploitation of wage labour, the source of profit being the unpaid labour of the producers.
The regulation of production by the market via a competitive struggle for profits.
The accumulation of capital out of profits, leading to the expansion and development of the forces of production.
A single world economy.
This is fundementally important to understand the current society and other so-called "socialist states" which are actually state capitalist.
State capitalism:
The wages system under new management. State ownership or nationalisation is not socialism, nor is it a step towards socialism. Capitalism is not just a particular form of property holding, but is essentially an impersonal economic mechanism; impersonal in the sense that it is a mechanism that operates independently of the will of people and imposes itself on them as an external force.
State capitalism and private capitalism have never existed as pure forms of society; every country has its own historically developed mix. But the main features of a model of state capitalism, drawn from historical examples, are as follows:
State ownership of the principal means of production
Generalised wage labour
Generalised use of money and money calculation
A relatively free market for consumer goods in the form of agricultural products and light industrial products
A market for means of production which is closely monitored by the state
Wide-scale planning activity, allocating supplies and directing products within the sphere of heavy industry, setting production targets, fixing prices and directing the flows of capital
A sizeable black-market.
Class is another definition that even self-proclaimed socialists are confused about, talking like politicians about a "middle" class. Class are determined by the relations to the mode of production: do you own or work? It doesn't matter how much money you make: income is irrelevant. If you define class by income, how do you determine who falls into what class? Does some one with 29,999 belong to a different class then someone with 30,000? That being said, workers, in the marxian definition, make up the vast majority of the populace. They work, but do not own; they are forced to sell their labor-power for a wage, in order to obtain subsistence. A capitalist, is someone then, who doesn't work, but owns, exploiting the worker, through the taking of his labor, in the shape of material or other goods, like a newscaster, an actor, a miner, factory worker, a doctor etc..., whose labor is taken by the capitalists. Or to put it in a more formal manner:
Capitalists personify capital. Because they possess the means of production and distribution, whether in the form of legal property rights of individuals backed by the state or collectively as a bureaucracy through the state, the capitalist class lives on privileged incomes derived from surplus value. The capitalists personally need not - and mostly do not - get involved in the process of production. Social production is carried on by capitalist enterprises which are overwhelmingly comprised of members of the working class.
Another gripe is with Trotsky/trotskyist. Trotskyist, to my knowledge, follow lenin's theories of vanguardism, democratic centralism, and transitional society. Although some agree with Mark on the definition of communism and socialism as the same thing. But He adds in the theory of permanent revolution and the ridiculous un-markist description of the USSR as a "degenerate workers state", in addition to suggesting that the revolution wouldnt have happened without lenin, a return to the great man theory of history, in addition to suggesting that socialism could suddenly be created in feudal Russia. Also how could a state be classified as a "workers state", much less one that massacred and enslaved them, even in Trotsky's time, with his direct supervision(Krondstadt, Red Terror)? The workers have no state other than the one imposed on them. Also the degenrate part dislpays the lack of knowledge by trotsky of marxism, by suggesting a separation of the superstructure from the base. These statements, by trotsky, demonstrate that Trosky truly didn't have/grasp an understanding of markism.
Stalinism/Maoism dont require any of my time critiquing them, as truly, no one can say them or their regimes had anything to do with markism or marxian socialism.
Another place for critique is this idea that welfare and Nationalization are socialist measures. I have already given a definition that dismisses these as a socialist society. They are just measures to reform/govern capitalism, and give it a "human face", to prevent real, marxian, socialism. These left wing and right wing policies have been used by regimes/administrations from Stalin and Lenin, to Hitler and Bismark. These measures were thought of by marx and Engels, because they didnt believe socialism could be created in 19th century Europe, at the time they wrote the manifesto 1848, in addition to calling for a lower stage communism, which would only be different from upstage communism by labor vouches to prevent shortages that may have existed in 19th century Europe.
Another misunderstanding that I have seen on multiple posts, and in the title of this forum, is the association of "left wing" with communism/socialism(they are the same thing in a market definition). To understand what I mean we only need I look back at the origin of this term. It originated with the seating of french rebulicans on the left and monarchist on the right. They are two parties trying to impose this idea of having/not having a monarch over the state. These terms only are a set of ideas on how to govern the superstructure of society, with the left advocating welfare, nationalization and the right, privatization, although these policies change from state to state. Socialism, is above this, it is a complete change of the "base" changing completely the mode of production, not a series of policies on superstructure governance. And this Socialism is not seen in any of those supposed "communist" states, besides the fact that a communist/socialist state is a contradiction, being that socialism is not a series of reforms involving nationalization and welfare.