Is Marx supporting State Capitalism in "The Principles of Communism"?

[TaylorS]

Here is the relevant passage:


Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat. The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing relations, are the following:

(i) Limitation of private property through progressive taxation, heavy inheritance taxes, abolition of inheritance through collateral lines (brothers, nephews, etc.) forced loans, etc.

(ii) Gradual expropriation of landowners, industrialists, railroad magnates and shipowners, partly through competition by state industry, partly directly through compensation in the form of bonds.

(iii) Confiscation of the possessions of all emigrants and rebels against the majority of the people.

(iv) Organization of labor or employment of proletarians on publicly owned land, in factories and workshops, with competition among the workers being abolished and with the factory owners, in so far as they still exist, being obliged to pay the same high wages as those paid by the state.

(v) An equal obligation on all members of society to work until such time as private property has been completely abolished. Formation of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

(vi) Centralization of money and credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital, and the suppression of all private banks and bankers.

(vii) Increase in the number of national factories, workshops, railroads, ships; bringing new lands into cultivation and improvement of land already under cultivation – all in proportion to the growth of the capital and labor force at the disposal of the nation.

(viii) Education of all children, from the moment they can leave their mother’s care, in national establishments at national cost. Education and production together.

(ix) Construction, on public lands, of great palaces as communal dwellings for associated groups of citizens engaged in both industry and agriculture and combining in their way of life the advantages of urban and rural conditions while avoiding the one-sidedness and drawbacks of each.

(x) Destruction of all unhealthy and jerry-built dwellings in urban districts.

(xi) Equal inheritance rights for children born in and out of wedlock.

(xii) Concentration of all means of transportation in the hands of the nation.

It is impossible, of course, to carry out all these measures at once. But one will always bring others in its wake. Once the first radical attack on private property has been launched, the proletariat will find itself forced to go ever further, to concentrate increasingly in the hands of the state all capital, all agriculture, all transport, all trade. All the foregoing measures are directed to this end; and they will become practicable and feasible, capable of producing their centralizing effects to precisely the degree that the proletariat, through its labor, multiplies the country’s productive forces.
The parts I bolded seem to suggest that Marx considered what we would now call State Capitalism to be needed in the transition to Socialism. Is this correct or am I misunderstanding something, here?

[ind_com]

Well after the revolution you need a period of state capitalism before you construct socialism. It is wrong to think that the proletariat will abolish all capitalist relations of production with a magic wand as soon as it seizes political power from the bourgeoisie. I don't see any problem with Marx's propositions.

[robbo203]

Well after the revolution you need a period of state capitalism before you construct socialism. It is wrong to think that the proletariat will abolish all capitalist relations of production with a magic wand as soon as it seizes political power from the bourgeoisie. I don't see any problem with Marx's propositions.


This is a wrong way of looking at the question. The advocacy of state capitalist measures by Marx and Engels such in the Communist Manifesto (chapter 2) - they had no illusions, unlike some leftists (and rightists!) today that this amounted to "socialism" - were specifically designed and advocated in order to facilitate certain preconditions upon which the establishment of socialism depended. In particular the development of the productive forces. By their reasoning, the capture of political power by the working class in these circumstancs would compel the working class to introduce such measures to enable the preconditions for a socialist society to materialise.


We are not in that position today and this whole argument in favour of state capitalist measures is now archaic and totally redundant. To say that the claim that the working class should immediately introduce socialism upon taking power is like "waving a magic wand" is completely misleading and missing the point. What needs to be done for socialism to be introduced immediately - namely, the development of the force of prpduction to a sufficently advanced level - has already been done! We dont need to develop the forces of prpduction any further. Rather it is capitalism that is more and more presenting an obstacle to their efficient and rational application. Capitalism, once a progressive economic system, has become the very opposite. It is becoming increasingly inefficient and wasteful at what it does. Why hang on to it for one moment longer?


What else needs to be done for socialism to be introduced immediately is for the working class, in a clear majority, to want and understand socialism. This indeed takes time and cannot be achieved by "waving a magic wand". But the argument is that only once it is achieved should we even attempt to capture political power. If a socialist minority tried to capture power before this it will inevitably fail and will inevitably morph into a new ruling class in opposition to the workers interests.


That is why all this talk of "waving magic wands" is an irrelevant distraction. On both counts, the case for the immediate introduction of socialism presupposes that the hard work had already been done. That is, it assumes that the forces of production have been sufficiently developed to enable socialism to happen . And it assumes that a great majority of workers want socialism and understand what it means

[Brotto Rühle]

The specific measures of the manifesto, as was said in parenthesis in TCM, would be totally different today. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a political transition to statelessness and classlessness. Any measures taken, including the socialization of the means of production are a fact of capitalism, not a realization of socialism or a new mode of production (see trotskyism). The absurdity of majoritatianism is for another thread. As far as the notion that "state capitalism" is the goal of the dotp, I think it comes from a mass misunderstanding of what constitutes state capitalism and the dotp.

[robbo203]

The specific measures of the manifesto, as was said in parenthesis in TCM, would be totally different today. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a political transition to statelessness and classlessness. Any measures taken, including the socialization of the means of production are a fact of capitalism, not a realization of socialism or a new mode of production (see trotskyism). The absurdity of majoritatianism is for another thread. As far as the notion that "state capitalism" is the goal of the dotp, I think it comes from a mass misunderstanding of what constitutes state capitalism and the dotp.


I dont quite understand the point you are making. What is this "absurdity of majoritarianism" you refer to?

Do you not concur with Engels in the Preface to Marx 's Civil War in France

The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for [with body and soul]. The history of the last fifty years has taught us that. But in order that the masses may understand what is to be done, long, persistent work is required, and it is just this work which we are now pursuing, and with a success which drives the enemy to despair

or the Communist Manifesto


All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority (Chapter 1. "Bourgeois and Proletarians" Manifesto of the Communist Party 1848)

Or the German Ideology


Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and ... the alteration of men on a mass scale is, necessary, ... a revolution; this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew.

[tuwix]

The parts I bolded seem to suggest that Marx considered what we would now call State Capitalism to be needed in the transition to Socialism. Is this correct or am I misunderstanding something, here?


I think you confuse two terms: nation and state. Marx quoted by you refers to nation that is not a state. If a state were ruled by whole nation and not only their rich part, those terms would be equivalent and statement that Marx supported state capitalism would be valid. But it isn't a case here.

[Zulu]

Marx is not supporting anything in "The Principles of Communism", because it's a solo by Engels.

Apart from that, the answer to your question is simple: Yes.

[Zulu]

What else needs to be done for socialism to be introduced immediately is for the working class, in a clear majority, to want and understand socialism. This indeed takes time and cannot be achieved by "waving a magic wand".
<...>
all this talk of "waving magic wands" is an irrelevant distraction.
Mutually exclusive paragraphs detected.

[Brotto Rühle]

I dont quite understand the point you are making. What is this "absurdity of majoritarianism" you refer to?

Do you not concur with Engels in the Preface to Marx 's Civil War in France

The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for [with body and soul]. The history of the last fifty years has taught us that. But in order that the masses may understand what is to be done, long, persistent work is required, and it is just this work which we are now pursuing, and with a success which drives the enemy to despairI do agree with his attack on blanquism. I also agree with Marx when he says the prevailing ideas in class society, are those of the ruling class


or the Communist Manifesto


All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority (Chapter 1. "Bourgeois and Proletarians" Manifesto of the Communist Party 1848) Mmhmm, I agree again.


Or the German Ideology


Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and ... the alteration of men on a mass scale is, necessary, ... a revolution; this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew.

yeah...but, my argument is such that, viewing the revolution as possible only when 70+% of the proles understand socialism, is not what Marx was talking about. Nor is what Marx taking about the seizure of political power, where I believe the majority of "communist consciousness" will likely come about.

My attacks on majoritarianism, is the attack on the notion that we can do nothing but sit idle until the last 1, 5, or 20% agree with us. I want to make it clear, I reject the vanguard party.

[CyM]

The logical conclusion is not that Marx "advocated state capitalism", but that "state capitalism" is what the early stages of the dictatorship of the proletariat would look like. As in, the whole theory of "state capitalism" flies in the face of what Marx considered a worker's state would have to do.

An honest appraisal of the question leads to that conclusion, anything else requires twisting Marx.

Edit:

And I'm aware Engels wrote this particular pamphlet, but they ran everything by each other and edited each other's works. And anyone who has resd the communist manifesto knows that the same measures are called for there.

Calling the degenerated worker's state a form of state capitalism ignores the manifesto.

[Brotto Rühle]

The logical conclusion is not that Marx "advocated state capitalism", but that "state capitalism" is what the early stages of the dictatorship of the proletariat would look like. As in, the whole theory of "state capitalism" flies in the face of what Marx considered a worker's state would have to do.

An honest appraisal of the question leads to that conclusion, anything else requires twisting Marx.

Edit:

And I'm aware Engels wrote this particular pamphlet, but they ran everything by each other and edited each other's works. And anyone who has resd the communist manifesto knows that the same measures are called for there.

Calling the degenerated worker's state a form of state capitalism ignores the manifesto.

Calling the USSR and any other state capitalist nation a "transitional" mode of production, or a phasing in of the socialist mode and out of the capitalist mode...is ignoring Marx's critique of political economy.

[Zukunftsmusik]

I also think it's important to note when the mentioned text was written. 1847, that's before 1848 and the Paris Commune, which made M&E write this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm), for example:


[...]The practical application of the principles [basically the same principles laid out by Engels in PoC] will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended organization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole months, this programme has in some details been antiquated. One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.”

[robbo203]

yeah...but, my argument is such that, viewing the revolution as possible only when 70+% of the proles understand socialism, is not what Marx was talking about. Nor is what Marx taking about the seizure of political power, where I believe the majority of "communist consciousness" will likely come about.

My attacks on majoritarianism, is the attack on the notion that we can do nothing but sit idle until the last 1, 5, or 20% agree with us. I want to make it clear, I reject the vanguard party.

I dont think anyone proposes doing nothing and idling away the time until a majority of workers have become socialists. As Engels put it in the quote I provided "But in order that the masses may understand what is to be done, long, persistent work is required, and it is just this work which we are now pursuing, and with a success which drives the enemy to despair" There is of course an argument to be had about what sort of work needs to be done which is another matter. I dont think personally there is any one single magic bullet we cen rely upon in that respect.

The other point I should perhaps make is that there is a certain ambiguity about the term "revolution". This can lead to misunderstandings as when people talk about things like the "Egyptian Revolution". In what sense was it a revolution and not just a change of regime? The problem is compounded when people talk of revolutiuon in a way that equates it with the use of violent force per se.


In a marxian sense "revolution" essentially means a fundamental change in the nature of society - its mode of production. How that is achieved is a decidedly secondary matter and, contrary to what some think, Marx and Engels were not averse to thinking socialism could be achieved by peaceful democratic methods,

In this sense, we are talking about revolution as amounting to the sweeping away of one mode of production and replacing it with another. When that happens we say a revolution has occured. The nature of such a revolution is determined by its outcome, by the kind of society it delivers . This is a powerfuil reason for arguing that the Bolshevik revolution notwithstanding the political rhetoric it clothed itself in was, in effect, a bourgeois capitalist revolution since it culminated in the establishment of a state capitalist system

Marx applied this same logic in relation to the situation in France. As he put it:
If the proletariat destroys the political rule of the bourgeosie, that will only be a temporary victory, only an element in the service of the bourgeois revolution itself, as in 1794, so long as in the course of history, in its movement, the material conditions are not yet created which make necessary the abolition of the bourgeois mode of production and thus the definitive overthrow of bourgeois political rule ("Moralising Criticism and Critical Morality", 1847 http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/10/31.htm).

He could very well have been describing what happened in the aftermath of the Bolshevik revolution which was for the most part carried out by workers

However you could also talk about revolution as a process of change in the direction of a new kind of society. Thats is to say it is something that is accumulative, incremental and transformativerather than an event. We call ourselves revolutuonaries trying to bring about a revolutionary change in society. Does that mean we are engaged in a revolution right now?


I dont know if this is the point that you are getting at with reference to your comment about the "absurdity of majoritarianism". The way I interpret that is that you are saying we shouldnt desist from engaging in revolutionary activity even though we are still far from being a majority.


I wouldnt disagree with that but I would insist that that there is no chance whatsoever of a revolutionary change in the nature of society - the other meaning of revolution - without a clear socialist majority and that whatever revolutionary activity we are engaged in now we must at all costs desist from even contemplating trying to capture political short of attaining a convinced socialist majority.

That is a certain recipe for disaster - as history shows - and the abandonment of any pretensions to being a revolutionary socialist since there is no way you can operate capitalism except in the interests of capital. Operating capitalism is what you will be compelled to, by default if not by design. if you grab power short of a socialist majority determined to get rid of capitalism

[Brotto Rühle]

I dont think anyone proposes doing nothing and idling away the time until a majority of workers have become socialists. As Engels put it in the quote I provided "But in order that the masses may understand what is to be done, long, persistent work is required, and it is just this work which we are now pursuing, and with a success which drives the enemy to despair" There is of course an argument to be had about what sort of work needs to be done which is another matter. I dont think personally there is any one single magic bullet we cen rely upon in that respect. Work must be done, yes. However, voting for "socialism", raising class conscious from the outside, and other such nonsense are certainly not it.


The other point I should perhaps make is that there is a certain ambiguity about the term "revolution". This can lead to misunderstandings as when people talk about things like the "Egyptian Revolution". In what sense was it a revolution and not just a change of regime? The problem is compounded when people talk of revolutiuon in a way that equates it with the use of violent force per se.The October revolution occured with little to no bloodshed. What occures after, and will inevitably occur elsewhere, is bourgeois counter revolution and violence. Hence the arming of the proletariat and the whole "dotp" notion.Violence is inescabable. The bourgeoisie use violence amongst there own factions, let alone when there class interests are threatened in totallity.



In a marxian sense "revolution" essentially means a fundamental change in the nature of society - its mode of production. How that is achieved is a decidedly secondary matter and, contrary to what some think, Marx and Engels were not averse to thinking socialism could be achieved by peaceful democratic methods,it's an incorrect view. Can you tell me you think the bourgeoisie will willfully give up their political power and the means of production? I'm talking today. I'm not talking what Marx and Engels considered a possibility at one point in history.


In this sense, we are talking about revolution as amounting to the sweeping away of one mode of production and replacing it with another. When that happens we say a revolution has occured. The nature of such a revolution is determined by its outcome, by the kind of society it delivers . This is a powerfuil reason for arguing that the Bolshevik revolution notwithstanding the political rhetoric it clothed itself in was, in effect, a bourgeois capitalist revolution since it culminated in the establishment of a state capitalist system This is nonsense. The class nature of a revolution isn't determined by whether it failed or succeeded.


Marx applied this same logic in relation to the situation in France. As he put it:
If the proletariat destroys the political rule of the bourgeosie, that will only be a temporary victory, only an element in the service of the bourgeois revolution itself, as in 1794, so long as in the course of history, in its movement, the material conditions are not yet created which make necessary the abolition of the bourgeois mode of production and thus the definitive overthrow of bourgeois political rule ("Moralising Criticism and Critical Morality", 1847 http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/10/31.htm). I'm not sure you're point, or how this draws a comparison...mostly because it doesn't.


He could very well have been describing what happened in the aftermath of the Bolshevik revolution which was for the most part carried out by workersHow so.


However you could also talk about revolution as a process of change in the direction of a new kind of society. Thats is to say it is something that is accumulative, incremental and transformativerather than an event. We call ourselves revolutuonaries trying to bring about a revolutionary change in society. Does that mean we are engaged in a revolution right now?The revolution itself won't be a flash event. It will come, ans it will come first as things such as strikes, uprisings, and the seizure of political power, fillwing into the defence of said political power and revolutionary gains. The revolution ends the moment capitalism is abolished.



I dont know if this is the point that you are getting at with reference to your comment about the "absurdity of majoritarianism". The way I interpret that is that you are saying we shouldnt desist from engaging in revolutionary activity even though we are still far from being a majority.Correct. Not should we, as the proletariat class, refrain from seizing political power just because only 49%, 60% or whatever are the class conscious actors. As so said, the PREVAILING ideas on society, are those of the ruling class. Meaning when the proletariat asserts itself as the ruling class, it's ideas, it's interests become prevailing.


I wouldnt disagree with that but I would insist that that there is no chance whatsoever of a revolutionary change in the nature of society - the other meaning of revolution - without a clear socialist majority and that whatever revolutionary activity we are engaged in now we must at all costs desist from even contemplating trying to capture political short of attaining a convinced socialist majority.

That is a certain recipe for disaster - as history shows - and the abandonment of any pretensions to being a revolutionary socialist since there is no way you can operate capitalism except in the interests of capital. Operating capitalism is what you will be compelled to, by default if not by design. if you grab power short of a socialist majority determined to get rid of capitalism
This last stement is particularly stupid. History shows...no, history shows the material conditions upon which these "disasters" occur. You're extremely utopian and ridiculous views are precisely the type of ideas which will stop any mass movement of the proletariat from developing. "what's that, you want to seize political power now? No no, we only have 45% of our class in support, go back home ..we will try later"

Revolution itself is the great teacher. The one thing that will raise the class conscious of the rest of the proletariat.

[robbo203]

Work must be done, yes. However, voting for "socialism", raising class conscious from the outside, and other such nonsense are certainly not it.

Electoralism is part of the package in my book , not the whole package. Its a bit silly in my view to just dismiss it out of hand. And what on earth does "raising class conscious from the outside" mean. We are workers and part of the working class



The October revolution occured with little to no bloodshed. What occures after, and will inevitably occur elsewhere, is bourgeois counter revolution and violence. Hence the arming of the proletariat and the whole "dotp" notion.Violence is inescabable. The bourgeoisie use violence amongst there own factions, let alone when there class interests are threatened in totallity.
.

The bourgeosie as a class are numerically tiny. Its workers employed by the state that do their bidding if it is violence they are set upon . As Jimmy Reid once said, if we all spat we could drown them. By the time genuine socialism is on the cards, the entire social climate would by then have fundamentally altered. Socialist ideas will have penetrated everywhere including the armed forces



it's an incorrect view. Can you tell me you think the bourgeoisie will willfully give up their political power and the means of production? I'm talking today. I'm not talking what Marx and Engels considered a possibility at one point in history.
.

Well, the recent collapse of the various state capitalist regimes in Eastern Europe occured with very little in the way of bloodshed, didnt they?. I think the only exception was Romania where between 1 and 2000 people lost their lives. When the writing is on the wall and the game is up there is very little the bourgeoisie will be able to do in my view. By then most of them will become wishy washy liberals falling over themselves to lure the workers back with sops of all kinds. Stop being so pessimistic about our potential class power! Think postively



This is nonsense. The class nature of a revolution isn't determined by whether it failed or succeeded..

Thats not quite what I said. I said the nature of a revolution (meaning in this context a fundamental change in the material basis of society) is determined by its outcome. If the revolutuon results in capitalism then ipso facto it must have been a capitalist revolution even it was carried out essentially by the working class. The quote from Marx I provided makes this abundantly clear. You need to separate analytically the nature of a revolution from the class character of its participants. Capitalist political parties everywhere are overwhelmingly supported by workers. By your logic they should be regarded as workers parties not capitalist parties. Do you think Obama is fronting a dictorship of the proletariat because it was the American proletariat that mostly put him in power?



The revolution itself won't be a flash event. It will come, ans it will come first as things such as strikes, uprisings, and the seizure of political power, fillwing into the defence of said political power and revolutionary gains. The revolution ends the moment capitalism is abolished.



Well, yes, here you are running together the two different senses of the term "revolution" which I previously alluded to. I dont really have a problem with that but I do have a problem trying to get a handle on how precisely you propose to "seize political power" if you reject voting or electoral politics. Are you seriously intending to take on the fully armed and equipped modern state head on after having warned us just a moment ago that the bourgeoisie will never give up without a fight?. To me that is tantamount to writing your own sucide note if its is violence you intend in preference to exploiting capitalism's very own Achilles Heel - bourgeois democracy meaning the electoral approach. I dont understand the knee yerk dogmatism some on the left seem to have about all this. Its just ridiculous and highlights precisely the utopianism of much of the Left which doesnt have a clue about how we are supposed to get from where we are today to where we want to be. Slogans are no substititue for hard thinking



Correct. Not should we, as the proletariat class, refrain from seizing political power just because only 49%, 60% or whatever are the class conscious actors. As so said, the PREVAILING ideas on society, are those of the ruling class. Meaning when the proletariat asserts itself as the ruling class, it's ideas, it's interests become prevailing.

You are putting the cart before the horse. Its ideas need to prevail before the proletariat seizes power. If not, whoever seizes power in the name of the proletariat - presumably some vanguard - will inevitably transmute into a new capitalist ruling class by virtue of the fact that it will be forced to operate capitalism by default. Quoting Marx's statement that the ideas of the ruling class are the ruling ideas does not mean setting this insight in concrete. You have to look at how it works out in a dynamic sense otherwise what are you left with? An empty dogma. If you literally took this statement to be some eternal truth it would mean ruling class ideas would forever remain dominant along with the ruling class itself since there would be no way you could break this vicious circle. The ideas support the class in power and the class in power propagates the ideas that keep it in power. That is surely not what Marx intended by this statement



This last stement is particularly stupid. History shows...no, history shows the material conditions upon which these "disasters" occur. You're extremely utopian and ridiculous views are precisely the type of ideas which will stop any mass movement of the proletariat from developing. "what's that, you want to seize political power now? No no, we only have 45% of our class in support, go back home ..we will try later"

Revolution itself is the great teacher. The one thing that will raise the class conscious of the rest of the proletariat.

You are simply not addressing the argument at all. In fact, to the contrary, I think you are being the utopian here and I am being the realist. If you dont have a socialist class-conscious majority and go ahead and seize power you will inevitably have to continue operating capitallism. Do you accept this position or not? If not then explain how you propose to impose socialism on a non socialist majority. It just cant work that way.

If you think you can get away with operating capitalism while a majority remain non socialist and still remain socialist then Im afraid you are suffering from a serious delusuon. You mention great teachers. Well history is a great teacher and the history of the whole sorry plight of the Second International puts paid to this delusion - that working class parties can somehow operate capitalism in the interests of the workers in the meantime

Revolution is a great treacher but the socialist revolution must above all be a conscious socialist revolution with socialism as its clear objective. A general strike per se does not and cannot possibly change the economic basis of society (not that i have anything against the use of the strike weapon - to the contrary!) But starvation always works on the side of the bosses as the saying goes and that in itself shows up the limitations of your conception of revolution

I prefer to stick with Engels advice on the subject


The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for [with body and soul]. Preface to Marx 's Civil War in France

[RedMaterialist]

Here is the relevant passage:

The parts I bolded seem to suggest that Marx considered what we would now call State Capitalism to be needed in the transition to Socialism. Is this correct or am I misunderstanding something, here?

It is clear that Marx did not just "suggest" such a transition period but thought it was absolutely necessary.

He says, "...the proletariat will find itself forced to go ever further, to concentrate increasingly in the hands of the state all capital...

The Communist-Capitalist crowd is convinced that, when the proletariat concentrates all capital in the hands of the state, that act itself converts the proletariat leadership into capitalists, and thus arises "State Capitalism;" Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin are magically transformed into the new bourgeoisie. Marx saw that there would be a transition from capitalism to communism, that transition perhaps now is best described as "socialism."

[CyM]

I wouldn't describe it as socialism, but as a dictatorship of the proletariat on the road to socialism. But I agree with your general appraisal.

[robbo203]

It is clear that Marx did not just "suggest" such a transition period but thought it was absolutely necessary.

He says, "...the proletariat will find itself forced to go ever further, to concentrate increasingly in the hands of the state all capital...

The Communist-Capitalist crowd is convinced that, when the proletariat concentrates all capital in the hands of the state, that act itself converts the proletariat leadership into capitalists, and thus arises "State Capitalism;" Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin are magically transformed into the new bourgeoisie. Marx saw that there would be a transition from capitalism to communism, that transition perhaps now is best described as "socialism."

Marx was not some god. He made mistakes and misjudgements like everyone else. It is clear that the state capitalist road to socialism he and Engels set out in Communist Manifesto is a complete dead end and there is a hint that they were begining to see this if you read through the prefaces to the Communist Manifesto, notably the 1872 preface.

One thing they both insisted on, and quite rightly, however , was that to establish socialism you need a socialist-minded majority. Others have ignored this advice. We now know with the benefit of hindsight what happens when a small minority attempts to frogmarch a non socialist majority towards socialism by capturing power first in the name of the proletariat. It ends in disaster for the proletariat and in a dictatorship of the vanguard over of the proletariat . There is only one way in which you can operate capitalism (of whatever variety) and that is in the interests of capital. Whoever takes on the running of capitalism will be forced to operate against the interests of wage labour; inevitably the vanguard will become a capitalist vanguard and a capitalist ruling class pretending to be anchored to the proletariat from which it had politically and economically detached itself.

One last thing,. Marx and Engels never distinguised between socialism and communism - that was Lenin's invention. The transition between capitalism and communism was merely a political transition and they used this term quite explicitly. The transition - the dictatorship of the proletariat - was for them still clearly grounded in the capitalist mode of production and, indeed, could not be anything other than that since the proletariat is classs category of capitalism

See this link for further information

http://libertyandsocialism.org/2011/05/17/the-myth-of-the-transitional-society/

[TaylorS]

Electoralism is part of the package in my book , not the whole package. Its a bit silly in my view to just dismiss it out of hand. And what on earth does "raising class conscious from the outside" mean. We are workers and part of the working class



The bourgeosie as a class are numerically tiny. Its workers employed by the state that do their bidding if it is violence they are set upon . As Jimmy Reid once said, if we all spat we could drown them. By the time genuine socialism is on the cards, the entire social climate would by then have fundamentally altered. Socialist ideas will have penetrated everywhere including the armed forces



Well, the recent collapse of the various state capitalist regimes in Eastern Europe occured with very little in the way of bloodshed, didnt they?. I think the only exception was Romania where between 1 and 2000 people lost their lives. When the writing is on the wall and the game is up there is very little the bourgeoisie will be able to do in my view. By then most of them will become wishy washy liberals falling over themselves to lure the workers back with sops of all kinds. Stop being so pessimistic about our potential class power! Think postively



Thats not quite what I said. I said the nature of a revolution (meaning in this context a fundamental change in the material basis of society) is determined by its outcome. If the revolutuon results in capitalism then ipso facto it must have been a capitalist revolution even it was carried out essentially by the working class. The quote from Marx I provided makes this abundantly clear. You need to separate analytically the nature of a revolution from the class character of its participants. Capitalist political parties everywhere are overwhelmingly supported by workers. By your logic they should be regarded as workers parties not capitalist parties. Do you think Obama is fronting a dictorship of the proletariat because it was the American proletariat that mostly put him in power?




Well, yes, here you are running together the two different senses of the term "revolution" which I previously alluded to. I dont really have a problem with that but I do have a problem trying to get a handle on how precisely you propose to "seize political power" if you reject voting or electoral politics. Are you seriously intending to take on the fully armed and equipped modern state head on after having warned us just a moment ago that the bourgeoisie will never give up without a fight?. To me that is tantamount to writing your own sucide note if its is violence you intend in preference to exploiting capitalism's very own Achilles Heel - bourgeois democracy meaning the electoral approach. I dont understand the knee yerk dogmatism some on the left seem to have about all this. Its just ridiculous and highlights precisely the utopianism of much of the Left which doesnt have a clue about how we are supposed to get from where we are today to where we want to be. Slogans are no substititue for hard thinking.



You are putting the cart before the horse. Its ideas need to prevail before the proletariat seizes power. If not, whoever seizes power in the name of the proletariat - presumably some vanguard - will inevitably transmute into a new capitalist ruling class by virtue of the fact that it will be forced to operate capitalism by default. Quoting Marx's statement that the ideas of the ruling class are the ruling ideas does not mean setting this insight in concrete. You have to look at how it works out in a dynamic sense otherwise what are you left with? An empty dogma. If you literally took this statement to be some eternal truth it would mean ruling class ideas would forever remain dominant along with the ruling class itself since there would be no way you could break this vicious circle. The ideas support the class in power and the class in power propagates the ideas that keep it in power. That is surely not what Marx intended by this statement



You are simply not addressing the argument at all. In fact, to the contrary, I think you are being the utopian here and I am being the realist. If you dont have a socialist class-conscious majority and go ahead and seize power you will inevitably have to continue operating capitallism. Do you accept this position or not? If not then explain how you propose to impose socialism on a non socialist majority. It just cant work that way.

If you think you can get away with operating capitalism while a majority remain non socialist and still remain socialist then Im afraid you are suffering from a serious delusuon. You mention great teachers. Well history is a great teacher and the history of the whole sorry plight of the Second International puts paid to this delusion - that working class parties can somehow operate capitalism in the interests of the workers in the meantime

Revolution is a great treacher but the socialist revolution must above all be a conscious socialist revolution with socialism as its clear objective. A general strike per se does not and cannot possibly change the economic basis of society (not that i have anything against the use of the strike weapon - to the contrary!) But starvation always works on the side of the bosses as the saying goes and that in itself shows up the limitations of your conception of revolution

I prefer to stick with Engels advice on the subject


The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for [with body and soul]. Preface to Marx 's Civil War in France
Get out of my head! We seem to be of one mind, here. :lol: