Definition of Socialism

[Tim Cornelis]

Left communists tend to claim that Marx (and Engels) explicitly defined socialism as a classless, stateless society. Can anyone provide me with a source for this?

[Akshay!]

Lower stage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_(Marxism)

[Tim Cornelis]

Lower stage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_(Marxism)

That's wikipedia, not a text by Marx or Engels, which is what I'm looking for. It was Lenin who started calling the lower-phase of communism socialism, I'm looking for an original source by Marx or Engels referring to socialism as classless and/or stateless.

[Blake's Baby]

No. They never explicitly said 'socialism is communism'. However, they emphatically never called the dictatorship of the proletariat, or the 'first stage' of communist society, 'socialism'. Their use of the two terms was inconsistent, (or to put it another way, consistent with the idea that they were synonyms) - for instance, 'scientific socialism' (not 'scientific communism') in contrast to the 'utopian socialism' of the idealists.

[Skyhilist]

"Socialism = communism" is basically a subjective inference based on Marx/Englel's use of the terms them rather than an objective fact of Marxist theory then?

[Fourth Internationalist]

In the manifesto and principles of communism, they talk about how communists relate to other socialists (bourgeois socialists, etc). I think they used it interchangeably sometimes but not other times like this case.

[Blake's Baby]

In the manifesto and principles of communism, they talk about how communists relate to other socialists (bourgeois socialists, etc). I think they used it interchangeably sometimes but not other times like this case.

I think this is misunderstanding the context.

All sorts of cranks called themselves 'socialists'. Marx and Engels were, if you like 'socialists who were communists/scientific socialists', as opposed to 'socialists who believed that eating leeks and living in self-managed prisons was the way forward' (as a hypothetical).

If you can find any examples of the utopian socialists around now, I'd agree that holding the term 'socialism' open to include them might make sense. But really they don't exist any more. There are in my opinion two sorts of 'socialists' now, marxists and anarchists. Both derive their theoretical backgroundd from the period 1848-1871 (ie the 1848 revolutions through to the Paris Commune) and both relate to the IWA/First International (and the work of Marx in it).

So if all 'socialists' are post-Manifesto and post-General Rules of the IWA ("...the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves, that the struggle for the emancipation of the working classes means not a struggle for class privileges and monopolies, but for equal rights and duties, and the abolition of all class rule...") rather than say believing that a socialist king will introduce universal enlightenment or a benevolent bourgeoisie can be persuaded to sponsor commune-colonies of 1,600 very regimented people, or whatever other blueprint political philosophers dreamed up, it doesn't make much sense to reserve the term 'socialist' to mean 'real political currents plus non-existent crackpot schemes'.

Sure, socialism then included those things, but socialism now doesn't.

[Dave B]

Now as for myself, I do not claim to have discovered either the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me, bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this struggle between the classes, as had bourgeois economists their economic anatomy. My own contribution was 1. to show that the existence of classes is merely bound up with certain historical phases in the development of production; 2. that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; 3. that this dictatorship itself constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society……..
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/letters/52_03_05.htm



We are now rapidly approaching a stage in the development of production at which the existence of these classes has not only ceased to be a necessity, but becomes a positive hindrance to production. They will fall as inevitably as they once arose. The state inevitably falls with them. The society which organizes production anew on the basis of free and equal association of the producers will put the whole state machinery where it will then belong–into the museum of antiquities, next to the spinning wheel and the bronze ax.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch09.htm

the second quote was used by Lenin and stalin;

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/granat/ch04.htm

http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/AS07.html#c3

[Dave B]

From Stalin;



It is also clear that future production will be socialistically organised, highly developed production, which will take into account the needs of society and will produce as much as society needs. Here there will be no room whether for scattered production, competition, crises, or unemployment.
Where there are no classes, where there are neither rich nor poor, there is no need for a state, there is no

page 337
need either for political power, which oppresses the poor and protects the rich. Consequently, in socialist society there will be no need for the existence of political power.

That is why Karl Marx said as far back as 1846:


"The working class in the course of its development Will substitute for the old bourgeois society an association which will exclude classes and their antagonism, and there will be no more political power properly so-called . . . " (see The Poverty of Philosophy).

That is why Engels said in 1884:

"The state, then, has not existed from all eternity. There have been societies that did without it, that had no conception of the state and state power. At a certain stage of economic development, which was necessarily bound up with the cleavage of society into classes, the state became a necessity. . . . We are now rapidly approaching a stage in the development of production at which the existence of these classes not only will have ceased to be a necessity, but will become a positive hindrance to production. They will fall as inevitably as they arose at an earlier stage. Along with them the state will inevitably fall. The society that will organise production on the basis of a free and equal association of the producers will put the whole machinery of state where it will then belong: into the Museum of Antiquities, by the side of the spinning wheel and the bronze axe" (see The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State).[90 (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/AS07.html#en90)]

[Dave B]

Stalin is using Socialism and communism interchangeably in 1906;




page 339
"In a higher phase of communist (i.e., socialist) society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labour, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labour, has vanished; after labour has become not only a means of livelihood but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual . . . only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois law be crossed in iis entirety and society inscribe on its banners: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'" (see Critique of the Gotha Programme (http://www.marx2mao.com/M&E/CGP75.html)).[91 (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/AS07.html#en91)].
Such, in general, is the picture of future socialist society according to the theory of Marx.

http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/AS07.html#c3


(i.e., socialist) is a Stalin insert and the ‘higher phase of communist society’ is the ‘picture of future socialist society according to the theory of Marx.’

[Tim Cornelis]

If you can find any examples of the utopian socialists around now, I'd agree that holding the term 'socialism' open to include them might make sense. But really they don't exist any more. There are in my opinion two sorts of 'socialists' now, marxists and anarchists.

The Zeitgeist 'Movement' and the Venus Project are notable examples of contemporary utopian socialists, although there's no continuity between utopian socialism of the 19th century and those movements.
Additionally, Marx called Proudhon a petite-bourgeois socialist and market socialists and mutualists are still around today.

[Rafiq]

Indeed, mutualists are Utopians, around 95% of the internet-communism crowd are utopians. Actually today most communists are utopians.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Blake's Baby]

The Zeitgeist 'Movement' and the Venus Project are notable examples of contemporary utopian socialists, although there's no continuity between utopian socialism of the 19th century and those movements.
Additionally, Marx called Proudhon a petite-bourgeois socialist and market socialists and mutualists are still around today.

1 - I dispute that the Zeitgeist movement are 'socialists'. Utopians, yes, but 'socialists'? I don't think so;
2 - again, 'market socialists and mutualists'? I don't they qualify as 'socialists' either.

[Fourth Internationalist]

@Blake's Baby If I understood correctly, you're saying that other modern socialists that aren't communists aren't real socialists/can't bring about socialism? Thus social(ism/ist) equals commun(ism/ist)? And that is why Marx used them interchangeably?

[Tim Cornelis]

1 - I dispute that the Zeitgeist movement are 'socialists'. Utopians, yes, but 'socialists'? I don't think so;
2 - again, 'market socialists and mutualists'? I don't they qualify as 'socialists' either.

The Zeitgeist Movement and the Venus Project, to my understanding, advocate a moneyless world with (near full?) automation and no states. Yet they don't advocate class struggle. That'd be utopian socialism.

"If you can find any examples of the utopian socialists around now, I'd agree that holding the term 'socialism' open to include them might make sense. "
So why are market socialists and mutualists not open to include socialists, saying they don't qualify as socialists is circular reasoning.

[Blake's Baby]

The utopian socialists of the 19th century advocated various schemes to bring about socialism (that is, at that point, the transcendence of capitalism, without getting into the details of how).

We know that capitalism can only be transcended by the working class organising for its destruction. Therefore, anyone who does not advocate the destruction of capitalism by the working class does not advocate 'socialism'. To claim that someone is a socialist because they believe that crazy blueprints can transcend capitalism is the same, in my opinion, as claiming someone is an astronaut because they believe that their washing machine is a spacecraft.

[Tim Cornelis]

The utopian socialists of the 19th century advocated various schemes to bring about socialism (that is, at that point, the transcendence of capitalism, without getting into the details of how).

We know that capitalism can only be transcended by the working class organising for its destruction. Therefore, anyone who does not advocate the destruction of capitalism by the working class does not advocate 'socialism'. To claim that someone is a socialist because they believe that crazy blueprints can transcend capitalism is the same, in my opinion, as claiming someone is an astronaut because they believe that their washing machine is a spacecraft.

But this contradicts what you said earlier.

[Blake's Baby]

Really? I'm not sure I see the contradiction.

[Lord Hargreaves]

The utopian socialists of the 19th century advocated various schemes to bring about socialism (that is, at that point, the transcendence of capitalism, without getting into the details of how).

We know that capitalism can only be transcended by the working class organising for its destruction. Therefore, anyone who does not advocate the destruction of capitalism by the working class does not advocate 'socialism'. To claim that someone is a socialist because they believe that crazy blueprints can transcend capitalism is the same, in my opinion, as claiming someone is an astronaut because they believe that their washing machine is a spacecraft.

I completely see where you are coming from, but this is unsatisfactory imho.

You are basically saying that professing socialism and advocating socialist ideals has nothing to do with being a socialist - which, as a belief system, is here defined solely on your own terms. "If your sociology and your analysis is off, then your moral principles must be phony!" But that is obviously too ungenerous an assessment.

Someone who believes in a communal, democratic society, with production organised collectively and not by markets, and with distribution according to need, is a communist. If they think this will be achieved through the second coming of Christ on earth, and so all they need to do is pray, they are still communists. All we can say is that they are not Marxists.

[Blake's Baby]

I dunno. I don't think someone is an astronaut because they believe their washing machine is a spaceship, and I don't think someone is a socialist because they believe a fairer society can be brought about by being vegetarian and voting for the Greens (substitute whatever panacea you like here).

Socialist society will be created by the mass of the working class overthrowing capitalism. Marxists and Anarchists agree on this (so it's not just 'being a Marxist'). If you don't advocate the mass organisation of the working clas to overthrow capitalism, you advocate something other than socialism. As Rosa said, by chosing a different route the destination, you sometimes chose a different destination.

'Moral principles' have nothing to do with it. People may sincerely believe that not eating meat and voting Green will lead to a better world. The fact that they believe it (and hell, why not, let's say are prepared to die for their beliefs) doesn't make it true. But the fact that it's not true doesn't make it 'phoney' either. They're not liars. They're just wrong.

[Fourth Internationalist]

That astronaut analogy does not work well. Non communists want to use their cars, ships, and planes to get to the moon. We want to use rockets and spaceships. Both want to get to the moon, but just because one isn't the way to go doesn't mean they don't want to get there.

While communists are sitting in the International Space Station, and social democrats are sitting on their washing machines, that makes no sense. Bad analogy.

[Blake's Baby]

So you think 'socialism' is just a matter of desire? Anyone who 'wants' to be a socialist is a socialist?

What about if one thinks a fair and free world can be brought about by the wholesale slaughter of Jews and Slavs, and the establishment of a strong German nation? Would they be 'socialists' too?

[Lord Hargreaves]

You're basically excluding all Utopian socialists, all Fabians and old Labour socialists, all Christian socialists, all the Kibbutzim (and similar movements), and all forms of socialism not tied to the industrial working class, from being "socialist".

And since you are a left communist..... you would also exclude all forms of Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, any other form of Bolshevism, and Maoism, from being "socialist".

I'm not arguing that your views on socialism are wrong. I'm just saying that excluding all the above is unreasonable and rather extremist, objectively speaking.

[Fourth Internationalist]

So you think 'socialism' is just a matter of desire? Anyone who 'wants' to be a socialist is a socialist?

What about if one thinks a fair and free world can be brought about by the wholesale slaughter of Jews and Slavs, and the establishment of a strong German nation? Would they be 'socialists' too?

Except that by definition is Fascism not socialism. Simply calling yourself a socialist does not make you a socialist nor do I claim that, but advocating for a world where production and distribution of goods is controlled by society as a whole makes you a socialist whether or not you want it in a revolutionary or classed based or scientific, etc way. Advocating Nazism does not make you a socialist. Unless you believe National Socialism is actually socialism?

[Skyhilist]

Wouldn't communalists (who follow the ideas Bookchin preached later on in his life) be considered utopian socialists.

Also, whenever there's a discussion on how to define capitalism most people say that it's a bourgeois class exploiting the labor of the working class. Most people on here also define socialism as the workers controlling the means of production, so given that why wouldn't mutualists and other market socialists be considered truly "socialist"?

[Blake's Baby]

Except that by definition is Fascism not socialism. Simply calling yourself a socialist does not make you a socialist ...

Yeah, I know, that's what I'm arguing.


...nor do I claim that, but advocating for a world where production and distribution of goods is controlled by society as a whole makes you a socialist whether or not you want it in a revolutionary or classed based or scientific, etc way. Advocating Nazism does not make you a socialist. Unless you believe National Socialism is actually socialism?

I don't but I'm not sure who else thinks it might be. After all, they called themselves socialists. Just many other people who don't have any methodology for creating socialist society.

Socialism, I'd argue, is not just 'a goal' it's also the means to reach that goal.

From The German Ideology:
"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence."

If you reject the conditions - the proletariat and the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism - then you reject the movement. If you reject the movement, how are you a socialist/communist?

Marx and Engels demonstrated (through the elaboration of 'scientific socialism') that the Utopians were... utopian. Historical development demonstrated that the Utopians were utopian. They may not have been back when there were only 100 capitalists and they might have been persuaded into madcap schemes to re-fashion humanity. But after the advent of the mass industrial proletariat?

Columbus died convinced he'd discovered a new route to China - Cuba was Japan, Venezuela was China, the Caribbean Islands were the Spice Islands. Does the fact that he believed he'd done it make it true?


You're basically excluding all Utopian socialists, all Fabians and old Labour socialists, all Christian socialists, all the Kibbutzim (and similar movements), and all forms of socialism not tied to the industrial working class, from being "socialist"...

Yes.

But with the proviso that what was considered 'socialist' at one stage in history is disproved as a method for creating socialist society. One could, as I said, at one time believe that mankind was moving to a more humane and rational organisation of society, and pin your hopes on that. That might even have been sensible in the 1700s. I don't think anyone would believe it today however.


...And since you are a left communist..... you would also exclude all forms of Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, any other form of Bolshevism, and Maoism, from being "socialist"...

The left of capital, you mean? Yes, I'd exclude them. Social democrats are not socialists - Maoists and Trotskyists and Stalinists would agree on that. Neither are Maoists and Trotskyists and Stalinists. They advocate policies which mitigate against the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and would result in the weakening of the proletariat and the strengthening of capitalism.. One cannot be both pro-capitalist and pro-socialist.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'Leninist' and 'Bolshevik' in your question, so I'll leave those to one side if you don't mind. Unless you want to explain what you mean in which case I could perhaps give you a more detailed answer.


...I'm not arguing that your views on socialism are wrong. I'm just saying that excluding all the above is unreasonable and rather extremist, objectively speaking.

Unreasonable and extremist, but not wrong? I don't see how they go together, to be honest. If I'm right, it's neither 'unreasonable' nor 'extremist' to hold those views.


Wouldn't communalists (who follow the ideas Bookchin preached later on in his life) be considered utopian socialists.

Also, whenever there's a discussion on how to define capitalism most people say that it's a bourgeois class exploiting the labor of the working class. Most people on here also define socialism as the workers controlling the means of production, so given that why wouldn't mutualists and other market socialists be considered truly "socialist"?

I'm sorry, I don't really care what 'most people say'. 'Most people' think communism is militarism, shortages, secret police and prison camps. 'Most people' think there's a god.

I could go on, obviously. But I expect you get the point.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Unreasonable and extremist, but not wrong? I don't see how they go together, to be honest. If I'm right, it's neither 'unreasonable' nor 'extremist' to hold those views.


That's the problem though. You don't understand how there can be a difference between what socialism means to you and what socialism means "objectively", as the name for a family resemblance of views linked together by a few common threads.

[Blake's Baby]

That's the problem though. You don't understand how there can be a difference between what socialism means to you and what socialism means "objectively", as the name for a family resemblance of views linked together by a few common threads.

I'm rather of the opinion that what you mean is subjectively. I think my definition of socialism is objective; socialism is both the goal and the means to the goal, tested (as far is possible) in the laboratory of history; not just some personally-defined blueprint that may (or, may not) have made sense 200 years ago but doesn't any more. It's the definitions based on wishing, rather than looking at the dynamics of class society, that I would see as 'subjective'.

[Sotionov]

Economic system where the laborers receive the full product of their labor.

IMO socialism also, besides an economy without exploitation, implies a society without oppression.