How should the transition to a communist society be done?

[d3crypt]

What do you think? I am currently unsure of my exact position on this.

[Remus Bleys]

Personally, I think that the entire world right now is ready for pure communism over night, if it weren't for one thing. People aren't ready for it, I think it is a psychological thing that would have to focus on. Prepare people for it.
The Revolution should get rid of these silly little states/districts/provinces and have a centralized Republic, while at the same time, instituting direct democracy at a local level. None of this single party crap either, every time that's happened, the party is always not communist. But we can't have Bourgeoisie parties either, so all parties can only have State funds, and corporate news and tabloids are banned. (I have a thread on here somewhere that describes how I think the post-revolution government should be run.)
At first, we should have huge land reforms, giving people back their property and ensuring enough homes for the world population, which caps at 10 billion (probably).
Then, we seize the assets of the Bourgeoisie and have the state take it, for social spending.
Around this same time, make all companies worker owned and worker managed, the State should not be their boss, but at the same time, the State should have a say in the economy. These worker owned companies still compete in the market for a while, and people do get profit, to combat any of the accumulation of capital (which is already shrunk, as the workers divide it amongst themselves) implement a very progressive tax system. Later, as always happens when a market is put in place, a monopoly will form. This is when the State becomes more direct with the Worker Council, and opens them up, ensuring everyone has a job, a house, food, electricity, etc. Later, the state would take more and more surplus from these, and lower the prices, until we get to a moneyless society. Then we start taking apart the State and so on.
I think it would take about 60 years if done properly.

[G4b3n]

Prior to the revolution, worker's institutions ought to be established. These institutions can then challenge the power of the bourgeois state, much like what happened in Russia from Feb-Oct 1917. For example, in early May when the "first coalition" was formed, the bourgeois state was forced accept the legitimate power of the soviets.

Like Lenin, Mao, and countless other revolutionaries have said, a revolution can not be planned and then executed, it is a violent uprising in response to consistent oppression. Assuming the conditions are right and the worker's are organized, an insurrection will eventually occur. Preferably resulting in the dismantling of the bourgeois state though MLs/Orthodox Marxists are going to argue for seizing the state and not dismantling it. Once the bourgeois state is dismantled, all legitimate power is transferred to the worker's institutions. During this lower phase of socialism, the institutions will still have to comply with some aspects of bourgeois law, customs, etc. All though private property is to be abolished immediately following the revolution so that aspect of bourgeois law disappears nearly instantly. Also the wide separation between political and economic spheres is to be abolished and with it bourgeois democracy in its present form, in its place will come direct democracy.

A transitional stage may be required before society can comply with "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". As Lenin said, people must become "accustomed to observing the fundamental rules of social intercourse", which I agree with in a broad sense.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

I think that Henry David Thoreau probably answered it best:


"I heart*ily accept the motto, — "That government is best which governs least;" and I should like to see it acted up to more rap*idly and sys*tem*at*i*cally. Car*ried out, it fi*nally amounts to this, which also I believe, — “That gov*ern*ment is best which gov*erns not at all;” and when men are pre*pared for it, that will be the kind of gov*ern*ment which they will have."


That's an important point to make. People must be ready for it. You cannot force the revolution on the people.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

How is it to be done? (http://tiqqunista.jottit.com/how_is_it_to_be_done%3F) :p

I think one thing to be wary of is any schema or grand plan. Strategy is, of course, necessary, but has to respond to concrete conditions, rather than positing answers to questions that haven't yet been asked.
Communism has to flow from the "real movement that abolishes capital" - meaning that it has to actually by carrying out the abolition of capital, and not reorganizing the management of capital. Any scheme where money and mediated exchange persist, where work is subject to market demand ("free" or planned), is not a path to communism.

[Remus Bleys]

Communism has to flow from the "real movement that abolishes capital" - meaning that it has to actually by carrying out the abolition of capital, and not reorganizing the management of capital. Any scheme where money and mediated exchange persist, where work is subject to market demand ("free" or planned), is not a path to communism.
Yeah, while that is the ideal, no. Most people are not ready for that. No amount of arguing can really fix that, arguing for anti-capitalism is nearly impossible with the General Public. So while that way is certainly the ideal, that is what it is gonna stay as to the General Public. The ideal.
Its hard enough arguing for general left wing thought, don't be the ultraleftist or you are gonna get seen as some loon even by other so called "leftists." Unfortunately, we are gonna have to concede certain principles. The working class is not some homogenous group that are all gonna go "hey, lets abolish capital" one day.
And you do need to know the answers, what if someone asks "And after the Revolution...?" To sit back and condemn a group for not being on the "right" path to Communism because they deal with capital is a bunch of bullshit.

[Remus Bleys]

. People must be ready for it. You cannot force the revolution on the people.
That is the point of what I was saying earlier. You have to get people ready for it. You can't just sit back and say "they are gonna get ready, I am convincing them of it." What good does that do in the real world?
The point of the Revolution is not to change society, but to get people ready for a societal change.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Yeah, while that is the ideal, no. Most people are not ready for that. No amount of arguing can really fix that, arguing for anti-capitalism is nearly impossible with the General Public. So while that way is certainly the ideal, that is what it is gonna stay as to the General Public. The ideal.
Its hard enough arguing for general left wing thought, don't be the ultraleftist or you are gonna get soon as some loon even by other so called "leftists." Unfortunately, we are gonna have to concede certain principles. The working class is not some homogenous group that are all gonna go "hey, lets abolish capital" one day.
And you do need to know the answers, what if someone asks "And after the Revolution...?" To sit back and condemn a group for not being on the "right" path to Communism because they deal with capital is a bunch of bullshit.

So, how do you make people ready for it?
Is it a question of attitudes? A matter of "convincing"? I'm sure we can agree that this isn't the case - that it's a matter of changing the conditions to change minds, and not the other way around.
So, the question becomes about how this is done - do we win the masses to communism by doing national capitalism with a human face? By preserving the essence of existing social relations (wage labour, money, etc.) with a red façade and an eventual goal of communism? Expressed in these terms, for what it is, the answer is clearly "No": an answer borne out by the historical experience of "actually existing" socialisms.
On the contrary, communism has to emerge out of the struggle to put communism in to practice. If there is a "transitional phase" it is the period where this struggle is incomplete - a period where the struggle against capital persists, and not a "peaceful" period where capitalism is reformed away from above!

[Remus Bleys]

that it's a matter of changing the conditions to change minds, and not the other way around.!

Exactly that is what the phase is for. Minds aren't changed yet, they are still embedded with Capitalism. And I am not talking about some peaceful shit. You are gonna have to change the conditions to get there so people can actually rap there head around it. You cant just have "Anarchy NOW!" People, this generation, doesn't want that. A lot of them do want unfettered capitalism. Which is why you are gonna have to concede and give them a transistional phase, let those people die off.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Exactly that is what the phase is for. Minds aren't changed yet, they are still embedded with Capitalism. And I am not talking about some peaceful shit. You are gonna have to change the conditions to get there so people can actually rap there head around it. You cant just have "Anarchy NOW!" People, this generation, doesn't want that. A lot of them do want unfettered capitalism. Which is why you are gonna have to concede and give them a transistional phase, let those people die off.

The thing is, the "transition" you're proposing isn't sufficiently fundamental. If the fundamental conditions of capital remain the same, consciousness won't fundamentally change. If you want people to stop believing in capitalism, a regulated market isn't going to do it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Exactly that is what the phase is for. Minds aren't changed yet, they are still embedded with Capitalism.

How have you created this so-called "phase" then? What even is this "phase" that you are speaking about? (Excuse me if you have stated this already, I was too lazy to read all the posts.)

The process of social transformation comes about from struggle, in which the proletariat accept the contradictions of capitalism, see themselves as agents of their own liberation and understand their relationship to the products of their labour -- these 'things' happen only through struggle and are a precursor to revolution.

"Revolution" comes about as a result of the proletariat's decision to seize the means of production and the subsequent defence of those gains at the point when the state and capitalists seek to protect their interests. At this profound moment in history the conditions of struggle have already "changed" the minds of the proletariat -- otherwise there couldn't have been a revolution.

Transition is necessary in order to re-organise society from a capitalist to a communist one, obviously, and I don't think any one could realistically argue that a transitional period wasn't necessary. But the idea that the proletariat need a period to "change their minds" doesn't really make any sense if you try and conceptualise the process of social transformation. It also begs many questions about the political nature of such a transitional phase and, ultimately, your attitude towards working class people.

[Remus Bleys]

The thing is, the "transition" you're proposing isn't sufficiently fundamental. If the fundamental conditions of capital remain the same, consciousness won't fundamentally change. If you want people to stop believing in capitalism, a regulated market isn't going to it The point is to show people a world without bosses is possible. That is the biggest critique of anarchism there is. If people actually experience a world without bosses, then capitalism has lost half the battle, the other half being the market. Which I did say would go away and be castrated, right?

[Remus Bleys]

How have you created this so-called "phase" then? What even is this "phase" that you are speaking about? (Excuse me if you have stated this already, I was too lazy to read all the posts.)

The process of social transformation comes about from struggle, in which the proletariat accept the contradictions of capitalism, see themselves as agents of their own liberation and understand their relationship to the products of their labour -- these 'things' happen only through struggle and are a precursor to revolution.

"Revolution" comes about as a result of the proletariat's decision to seize the means of production and the subsequent defence of those gains at the point when the state and capitalists seek to protect their interests. At this profound moment in history the conditions of struggle have already "changed" the minds of the proletariat -- otherwise there couldn't have been a revolution.

Transition is necessary in order to re-organise society from a capitalist to a communist one, obviously, and I don't think any one could realistically argue that a transitional period wasn't necessary. But the idea that the proletariat need a period to "change their minds" doesn't really make any sense if you try and conceptualise the process of social transformation. It also begs many questions about the political nature of such a transitional phase and, ultimately, your attitude towards working class people.

Do you think I am not a working person? I know many working people. They saw my anarchism as idealist. So I accommodated my rhetoric to fit their idea. And yeah I did discuss this, earlier.
If I showed any contempt for the "masses" I wasn't trying to. I was trying to be a realist.

And Blanquism blows away your "a revolution needs to be"

[The Feral Underclass]

Do you think I am not a working person? I know many working people. They saw my anarchism as idealist. So I accommodated my rhetoric to fit their idea. And yeah I did discuss this, earlier.
If I showed any contempt for the "masses" I wasn't trying to. I was trying to be a realist.

And Blanquism blows away your "a revolution needs to be"

None of this really addresses the substance of what I said...

[Remus Bleys]

None of this really addresses the substance of what I said...
Except it does. Blanquism doesn't necessitate that a majority agree with the revolution.
And if a majority don't, then the minds of the proletariat haven't been changed, have they? Even if the majority do, you still have the reactionaries.

[Vladmir Lenin]

Id think quickly and ruthlessly however if a revolution does occur, it will be slow and drawn out to soften the proverbial 'blow' on the capitalist scum.

[tuwix]

What do you think? I am currently unsure of my exact position on this.

First of all, the means of production must belong to the workers. And I mean workers and not any state as it was in Soviet Union.
Secondly, there must be applicated proper monetary policy to terminate moneteray system in the end. My idea is double currency. One currency that would be stable in which salaries would be paid, and second one highly printed one and unstable in which taxes would be paid and central project would be financed by printing that curreency. Certainly, exchange between two currencies would be free.
Thirdly, the central project besides normal social services must involve large automation.

And after achieving of level when 90% of work would be done by machines and the rest would be done by volunteers, the pure communism could be introduced without any noticable drop of life's quality.

[d3crypt]

First of all, the means of production must belong to the workers. And I mean workers and not any state as it was in Soviet Union.
Secondly, there must be applicated proper monetary policy to terminate moneteray system in the end. My idea is double currency. One currency that would be stable in which salaries would be paid, and second one highly printed one and unstable in which taxes would be paid and central project would be financed by printing that curreency. Certainly, exchange between two currencies would be free.
Thirdly, the central project besides normal social services must involve large automation.

And after achieving of level when 90% of work would be done by machines and the rest would be done by volunteers, the pure communism could be introduced without any noticable drop of life's quality. i understand what you mean, but this is very broad. What should be used to manage the transition state? Workers Councils?

[tuwix]

i understand what you mean, but this is very broad. What should be used to manage the transition state? Workers Councils?

Direct democracy would be perfect for that. In free elections there would be appointed militia chiefs, local judges and central bank council. Small companies would be transformed into cooparatives where simple majority would decide. Big corporations would have workers councils to make decisions.

[Jimmie Higgins]

i understand what you mean, but this is very broad. What should be used to manage the transition state? Workers Councils?That's probably a good bet, but as VMC, said, it would come out of whatever workers use to self-organize in the actual revolution. So I don't think we can say exactly what that would look like - maybe a series of open-ended mass strikes create councils based on how the strikes were organized, maybe there are networks connected to revolutionary unions, maybe some combination of popular bodies in working class communities and workplace councils.

Basically, capitalism as "base" in society can't really be interacted with directly - CEO's don't "create" competition by decreeing it or whatnot, it's just a fundamental aspect of capitalist relations. But workers can interject themselves into the "superstructure" - taking over administration, economic power (siezing workplaces and the means of production), and armed power against the old regime supporters if needed. This would be the transition, a new reorganization of the surface and structural aspects of society that can be directed towards clearing the way for new "communist" social relations to develop.

[The Feral Underclass]

Except it does.

But it actually doesn't...


Blanquism doesn't necessitate that a majority agree with the revolution.
And if a majority don't, then the minds of the proletariat haven't been changed, have they? Even if the majority do, you still have the reactionaries.

What the fuck are you talking about?

[Remus Bleys]

But it actually doesn't...



What the fuck are you talking about?

Blanquism is the idea that a small group of people would commit the Revolution. I hardly doubt anytime soon all of the proletariat would gain class consciousness, but I am sure that soon enough, a big enough minority will gain class consciousness to make a Revolution feasible.
That is what you deal with, not everyone is going to open their eyes to socialism right away, many will want to go back to Capitalism, but the sooner we ditch capitalism, the better.

[baronci]

Direct democracy would be perfect for that. In free elections there would be appointed militia chiefs, local judges and central bank council. Small companies would be transformed into cooparatives where simple majority would decide. Big corporations would have workers councils to make decisions.

This is still perfectly compatible with capitalism. Communism has not existed until the workplace itself is destroyed.

[The Feral Underclass]

Blanquism is the idea that a small group of people would commit the Revolution.

I would contend that a revolution isn't really a revolution if it involves a minority.

In any case, how do you envision such a coup d'etat taking place? Do you imagine you can just storm Parliament? What is the objectives of this minority? What do they seek to achieve?


I hardly doubt anytime soon all of the proletariat would gain class consciousness, but I am sure that soon enough, a big enough minority will gain class consciousness to make a Revolution feasible.

The point I was trying to get across to you in my original post is that social transformation or revolution (whatever you want to call it) isn't just something that just happens. It's a process.

I have not suggested that the proletariat would become class conscious "any time soon," in fact what I was saying was the complete opposite of that -- that the process happens through struggle over time.


That is what you deal with, not everyone is going to open their eyes to socialism right away

Right away when? You are constructing some kind of historical time-line that doesn't really make any sense to me. What does "right away" mean? At what period of history are you talking about? What does "opening their eyes" actually mean? How do you achieve all this?

Just to be clear, my questions are not rhetorical, I am directly asking you for answers.


many will want to go back to Capitalism, but the sooner we ditch capitalism, the better.

And your solution to achieving that is having some, as of yet, inexplicable minority coup d'etat? And then what? What happens next?

[Remus Bleys]

I would contend that a revolution isn't really a revolution if it involves a minority.

In any case, how do you envision such a coup d'etat taking place? Do you imagine you can just storm Parliament? What is the objectives of this minority? What do they seek to achieve?



The point I was trying to get across to you in my original post is that social transformation or revolution (whatever you want to call it) isn't just something that just happens. It's a process.

I have not suggested that the proletariat would become class conscious "any time soon," in fact what I was saying was the complete opposite of that -- that the process happens through struggle over time.



Right away when? You are constructing some kind of historical time-line that doesn't really make any sense to me. What does "right away" mean? At what period of history are you talking about? What does "opening their eyes" actually mean? How do you achieve all this?

Just to be clear, my questions are not rhetorical, I am directly asking you for answers.



And your solution to achieving that is having some, as of yet, inexplicable minority coup d'etat? And then what? What happens next?
First question: How did Lenin take over Russia? How did Napoleon take over France?
The objective is what I laid out earlier. Did you read my post?
Right after the blanquist Revolution. You acheive this by putting them in a situation that is like communism, a world of worker self management, and of lowered inequality. Show them how superior that is. And a reworking of education to favor our collectivist past (which isn't really that unfair, objectivity is unfortunately a myth, might as well use the bias for an advantage)... again did you read my first post?
It is better to transition to communism then to wait for people to wake up and implement full communism themselves. Obviously the second option is better. I just think the sooner we get away from capitalism the better, and by any means necessary.

[Rural Comrade]

First we have a successful revolution in a country or several. Local governments become direct democracy, the provincial legislators are directly elected by the people, the provincial legislator elect national legislators who elect the heads of state and government. These countries start building socialism (socialism in one country) and work together to spread socialism around the globe. Then when the whole world is socialist we build towards communism with the people gaining authority over greater areas provincial, then national, then communism.

Socialism in one country is the building of socialism while spreading socialism just to clear that up. As for a vanguard party they would both exist and rule as the sole party though those loyal to the revolution may also run as independents in elections.

[Remus Bleys]

First we have a successful revolution in a country or several. Local governments become direct democracy, the provincial legislators are directly elected by the people, the provincial legislator elect national legislators who elect the heads of state and government.
Because people can't elect their own national legislators, heads of state or government?

[Rural Comrade]

I'm just fallowing democratic centralism.

[Remus Bleys]

I'm just fallowing democratic centralism.
Why? Whats so good about it?

[Rural Comrade]

It's how we slowly dissolve from a socialist state to classless communism by having the people gain complete control over those areas of autonomy.

[Brutus]

Why? Whats so good about it?

It ensures complete democracy and efficiency.

[Remus Bleys]

It's how we slowly dissolve from a socialist state to classless communism by having the people gain complete control over those areas of autonomy.
Except no. Do you believe in a single party state? Do you believe in all discussion is over after a decision is made, with no dissent at all? If so, then that is *not* autonomous rule, that is dictatorship of the party, and on top of that, dictatorship of the party boss over the party.
How is not directly electing those in charge of your fate give the people complete autonomy?

[Rural Comrade]

I've already stated but I'll try to make it simple this time.

Provincial legislators are elected by the people similar to most modern "democracies" the party is the only legal party though they are not garented seats in the legislater. So the Provincial legislators elect the national legislators who as mentioned do not have to be a member of the party. Then the national legislater elects the head of state/ government.

[The Feral Underclass]

First question: How did Lenin take over Russia How did Napoleon take over France?

So you are suggesting you want to stage a military coup? So your plan to achieve communism is to find some sympathetic soldiers and officers and stage a coup?


Right after the blanquist Revolution. You acheive this by putting them in a situation that is like communism, a world of worker self management, and of lowered inequality.

How do you overcome the police, organised fascists and the armed forces?


Show them how superior that is.

So essentially you want to impose communism on people?


And a reworking of education to favor our collectivist past (which isn't really that unfair, objectivity is unfortunately a myth, might as well use the bias for an advantage)... again did you read my first post?

I'm sorry, I have absolutely no idea what this is supposed to mean.


It is better to transition to communism then to wait for people to wake up and implement full communism themselves. Obviously the second option is better. I just think the sooner we get away from capitalism the better, and by any means necessary.

But what you think isn't really what's important, is it?

We all "think" that getting rid of capitalism sooner rather than later would be better, but what you are suggesting just won't work. Aside from the fact you still haven't identified who this minority are, you also haven't identified how you intend to actually seize political power or contend with the massive state apparatus that would stop you? You've told us that you want to seize political power through a military coup, but how do you think that is actually going to happen?

Like I keep saying, a communist revolution isn't an event, it's a process. That process can't start just because you have seized the state through a military coup (not that this would be in any way possible). The process can only exist if the working class are engaged in economic struggle.

[baronci]

It's how we slowly dissolve from a socialist state to classless communism by having the people gain complete control over those areas of autonomy.

In Leninist theory, "Democratic Centralism" is something that only applies to the internal affairs of political parties. It is not a principle meant to be used for all aspects of the 'workers state.'

[Remus Bleys]

I've already stated but I'll try to make it simple this time.

Provincial legislators are elected by the people similar to most modern "democracies" the party is the only legal party though they are not garented seats in the legislater. So the Provincial legislators elect the national legislators who as mentioned do not have to be a member of the party. Then the national legislater elects the head of state/ government.
Why is that superior? Is the proletariat too stupid to elect national legislators?

[Rural Comrade]

The point is that it is necessary in the building of communism.

[Remus Bleys]

So you are suggesting you want to stage a military coup? So your plan to achieve communism is to find some sympathetic soldiers and officers and stage a coup?



How do you overcome the police, organised fascists and the armed forces?



So essentially you want to impose communism on people?



I'm sorry, I have absolutely no idea what this is supposed to mean.



But what you think isn't really what's important, is it?

We all "think" that getting rid of capitalism sooner rather than later would be better, but what you are suggesting just won't work. Aside from the fact you still haven't identified who this minority are, you also haven't identified how you intend to actually seize political power or contend with the massive state apparatus that would stop you? You've told us that you want to seize political power through a military coup, but how do you think that is actually going to happen?

I want the population of the proletariat that has actually gained class consciousness to stage this coup. Thats how you deal with it. The minority of the proletariat that has class consciousness. Thats how the power is seized.
I want to impose a version of communism light. You cant impose full communism, thats impossible. I want to impose a version of socialism that still has a form of capital, so they (everyone else) can get used to it.
What you say isnt really that important either. I thought this was a discussion board.
What this means is you rework the education system to favor communism, especially by emphasizing the collectivism humanity has shown throughout all time.

[The Feral Underclass]

I want the population of the proletariat that has actually gained class consciousness to stage this coup. Thats how you deal with it.

How do they become class conscious?


The minority of the proletariat that has class consciousness. Thats how the power is seized.

And how does it deal with police and the armed forces, as well as the masses of people who are not class conscious and whom want your "revolution" to fail?


I want to impose a version of communism light.

How then do you deal with the natural reaction from people who will take issue with having this forced upon them?


I want to impose a version of socialism that still has a form of capital, so they (everyone else) can get used to it.

Why do you need to stage a coup for this? Why not just get elected?


What you say isnt really that important either. I thought this was a discussion board.

You missed the point I'm making. Again.

I am not saying that what you think isn't important, I am saying that your motivation: "I think it is better to get rid of capitalism sooner rather than later" isn't a crucial part of understanding how we achieve social transformation.

Just thinking something isn't grounds for actualising a strategy to create communism. There has to be some deeper understanding of the nature of struggle, the nature of capitalism and the state and ultimately the nature of how you achieve communism.

Things you appear not to have an understanding of.


What this means is you rework the education system to favor communism, especially by emphasizing the collectivism humanity has shown throughout all time.

Good luck.

[Remus Bleys]

How do they become class conscious?
Are you saying certain people aren't already class conscious? There is a minority that is close to that already



And how does it deal with police and the armed forces, as well as the masses of people who are not class conscious and whom want your "revolution" to fail? Superior arms. Do you not think that a minority has imposed its will against a resistant majority before? After a while, people will like it better. I give it a couple years before genuine democracy would get reestablished, or rather, established.




How then do you deal with the natural reaction from people who will take issue with having this forced upon them? Let them be against it, as long as they aren't destructive. If they are, fuck 'em, lock them in a prison.




Why do you need to stage a coup for this? Why not just get elected? Because its to radical?


And what is your solution? Wait around until capitalism starts to collapse in on itself? That has been a strategy for quite some time now, hasn't it?

[Remus Bleys]

I am saying that your motivation: "I think it is better to get rid of capitalism sooner rather than later" isn't a crucial part of understanding how we achieve social transformation.
Its an internet forum where I gave a poor choice of words. What I should have said was "the sooner capitalism is gone the better".
Opposing that is like opposing all reforms and continuing to live in laissez-faire capitalism because the reforms don't go far enough. Yes, you are right, but it isn't it much better to have an eight hour work day then to not have an eight hour work day? You have to be pragmatic and actually want to solve short term problems or you don't care about the proletariat.

[Slavic]

@ Remus Bleys ( I can't quote yet due to posting restrictions)

I do not understand how any of your proposed methods of implementing a "communist lite" society will work let alone last long enough to establish a true communist society.

You state that a minority of the proletariat is sufficient enough to establish a government that can work in a top-down methodology of implementing policies that will help transition society into a socialist state. This transition will be accomplished through a mass reeducation of the proletariat, and that any resistance toward such programs will be dealt with through imprisonment and superior force.

This line of thinking is extremely idealistic because it is just utterly impossible to be accomplished. How does a minority obtain superior arms and the mass appeal to perform mass arrests? How does a minority proletariat perform a successful coup? Are we just going to assume that the bourgeoisie military apparatus is just going to turn a blind eye to such an extreme change in leadership?

Lets hypothetically assume that somehow a minority group of the working class found a way to obtain high grade weapons, eliminate and replace the leaders of the state, and for some reason the military let this coup occur. How does this "vanguard" maintain is power and enact its programs? Force of arms? A vanguard is useless unless it has a sympathetic mass that will allow it to enforce its agenda.

I am highly skeptic that a small socialist armed group can dictate its agenda unto the non-concious ingnorant masses, the entire military apparatus and its bourgeoisie interests, and the might of the previous ruling class. Mind you, you stated in your "communist lite" society, capital will still exist which does nothing but empower the bourgeoisie that you are fighting against.

Your arguments against the critiques that "The Anarchist Tension" stated are idealistic and not grounded in reality.

[Remus Bleys]

capital will still exist which does nothing but empower the bourgeoisie that you are fighting against. Mind you I also said seize all the assets of the Bourgeoisie. I am not all about reeducation just changing the education system to be more left wing. This isnt a totalitarian method, this is a way of gaining power and introducing workplace democracy to people, and after seeing they like it, dealing a huge blow to capitalism. After that continue and start destroying the market and capital. Its a slow transistion to get people to actually accept communism. Don't you think the world would be more accepting of communism if it was a world like no with no Bourgeoisie or bosses?
Its top down for a little while. The regime itself cant last very long. Thats why it implements the most basic of reforms, and then establishes a true democracy. These limited reforms put the power in the hands of the worker, giving capital to the *worker* and evenly distributing it. I do not understand how after seizing the wealth of the Bourgeoisie and then cutting them off from their income source helps them in any way, shape or form.
As for the imprisonment of anyone, that is just if they do damage to the regime.

[Slavic]

The power of the bourgeoisie lays within the institutions of the state that enforce the will of the capitalists and rebukes challenges tho their power.

These institutions of the state encompass not just the bourgeoisie, but the petite-bourgeoisie, and a large portion of the proletariat.

Federal, State, and local governments. The military, police, and secret police, judicial systems. Business owners, nationalists, splintered proletariat. All of these forces protect the interests of the bourgeoisie, simply eliminating the heads of state will not quell the reaction that you will endure from these institutions.

This is the problem with a minority insurrection and coup. A radical minority can perform radical changes, but they don't have the sheer manpower to protect the fundamental changes that need to be accomplished to establish a socialist state.

[Remus Bleys]

Then how much? Even if it is a super majority, you will still have people who are completely against communism and need something to help them get used to.
Even those who agree with it, needs to get used to it.

[G4b3n]

It's how we slowly dissolve from a socialist state to classless communism by having the people gain complete control over those areas of autonomy.

Even if the time came for the "socialist" state to dissolve, it wouldn't happen. Why? Because the state's tendency is to defend those who are privileged because of it, i.e the ruling class. Which in the case of so called "socialist" states is the so called "vanguard" of the proletariat.

By "the people" you mean the benevolent masters of the people.

[subcp]

A radical minority can perform radical changes, but they don't have the sheer manpower to protect the fundamental changes that need to be accomplished to establish a socialist state.

Right- it'd be a class dictatorship, not a dictatorship of a party or 'small minority'. But class consciousness is not uniform or static, so the example of minorities of advanced workers (the first workers to establish systems of mandated delegates; the first workers to network strike committees; the first workers to proclaim indefinite mass strikes) informs the rest of the class, propelling the movement forward under its own inertia. The parts of the class that begin the revolutionary movement, showing by example the path to 'the transformation of all things' is in the vanguard; workers who recognize that communism is the only solution to the crisis of capital are in the vanguard. It just means the 'leading edge' of the revolution. The state can't be more than a side effect, after the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is toppled, of a society still divided by classes- something that is, fast or slow, dealt with after the capitalists have been expropriated and smashed but before there is a classless, stateless world human community.

[tuwix]

This is still perfectly compatible with capitalism. Communism has not existed until the workplace itself is destroyed.

Supposedly you didn't read my previous expression int his topic. This one you reffer only refers to tranistion stage. The previous one how to get into pure communism.