Can a society be socialist without being stateless?

[Skyhilist]

Pretty simple question.

[helot]

Depends how you're defining socialism.

Even among Marxists there are two contradictory definitions of socialism. For some, socialism is the lower stage of communism which occurs after the DotP and thus is stateless while for others it is the DotP and thus there is a state.


As for myself... no. The state can only exist when society is split into classes. I'd consider socialism as classless and thus stateless.

[Skyhilist]

So socialism = classless and stateless to some... But that's the lower form of communism. These people also generally see socialism as being international.

What more is there to add to classless, stateless, and international to get to full communism then (as opposed to the lower form of communism that some describe this as)?

Personally, I think workers' control + international + no capitalist markets constitutes socialism with or without a state (although I'd prefer without since I'm anarchist).

Socialism and communism are also used interchangeably between libertarian socialists, so there's not really even a "lower form of communism" for those of us that use the two interchangeably, making things even more complicated.

[helot]

I'll quote Blake's Baby's (too many apostrophes!) post about this which i've quoted elsewhere. I think it's atleast a typical left communist's view on it but if it's not i hope someone corrects me..



Three stages, basically.

DotP = a class society, in which the working class has assumed political power in the state; but as this is not yet a situation where capitalism has been overthrown worldwide, it corresponds to the world civil war, when both revolutionary and reactionary territories exist and the world revolution has not yet been completed. This, I and many others would argue, must mean that the DotP must be overseeing a truncated form of capitalism (because it's a society with a class system, property laws and states).

Lower stage of communism = a stage when capitalism has been defeated throughout the world, but society is not yet capable of producing unlimited goods to fulfill all needs; in this stage there must be some sort of rationaing in place; some people think it should be rationing by price, some rationing by work, some - like me - rationing by need. We don't really agree about that point.

Higher stage of communism = the stage when production for need really is a reality and there are no shortages, no rationing, and we can all live free and productive lives.


Personally i don't make the distinction, this is just stuff i've come across on here.

Also, while being a libsoc myself (anarcho-syndicalist specifically) i don't see socialism and communism as interchangeable. For me socialism is classless and stateless but i don't think it's necessarily 'from each... according to each'. There are socialisms which are not communistic. I don't think they're likely at all but that's for another topic.

[BlackSovietComrade]

I'll quote Blake's Baby's (too many apostrophes!) post about this which i've quoted elsewhere. I think it's atleast a typical left communist's view on it but if it's not i hope someone corrects me..





Personally i don't make the distinction, this is just stuff i've come across on here.

Also, while being a libsoc myself (anarcho-syndicalist specifically) i don't see socialism and communism as interchangeable. For me socialism is classless and stateless but i don't think it's necessarily 'from each... according to each'. There are socialisms which are not communistic. I don't think they're likely at all but that's for another topic.

In socialism, their is still class but are much off a gap than in capitalist countries, socialism's goal is to eventually go to communism and at that point, there would be no classes.

Sent from my ZTE N9120 using Tapatalk 2

[BlackSovietComrade]

Socialism, still has classes. Socialism will eventually lead to communism which has no classes

[Skyhilist]

Yeah BB's post clears things up, although idk that I'd like socialism defined so narrowly. Yeah I'm also an anarcho-syndicalist, and don't see other's idea of socialism (e.g. M-Ls) as interchangeable with communism, but I see my own conception of what socialism should be as somewhat interchangeable with communism (not to say that my perception of socialism is the only legitimate conception of socialism).

But yeah, I more or less agree with BB on this except I don't agree with calling it DoTP because I don't see any reason to exclude the bourgeois class under capitalism from decision making at community and worker assemblies should they choose to join the workforce (and if they aren't excluded and have as much a say as anyone else, I don't think it makes sense to call it a dictatorship). So yeah if there's any reliance on international markets we cant yet call what we've got socialism, but some other term like "transitionary anarchism" or something like that might make more sense. And also I don't think socialism MUST be stateless, although I'd prefer it to be obviously.

[helot]

In socialism, their is still class but are much off a gap than in capitalist countries, socialism's goal is to eventually go to communism and at that point, there would be no classes.


Pretty much proved my initial post in this thread about the contradictory definitions of socialism even among marxists.

[Skyhilist]

I think this is actually quite a legitimate problem -- to people new to these terms, it's incredibly confusing and makes it hard to understand economic concepts because we can't agree on what to call them.

I wish we could just all call these thing the same thing but just use entirely new words so there wouldn't be so much disagreement and confusion. That will probably never happen though.

[helot]

Yeah the chances of us all holding the same definitions is nigh on impossible and yet there appears to be an obsession with using such jargon. It really doesn't help.

[Blake's Baby]

... I more or less agree with BB on this except I don't agree with calling it DoTP because I don't see any reason to exclude the bourgeois class under capitalism from decision making at community and worker assemblies should they choose to join the workforce (and if they aren't excluded and have as much a say as anyone else, I don't think it makes sense to call it a dictatorship)...

...and if they join the workforce I don't think it makes to call them 'the bourgeois class'.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the working class taking control of society. You might not want to call it 'the dictatorship of the proletariat', but you do (as an anarcho-syndicalist) agree that the working class needs to take over production and distribution, and indeed the direction of society, yes?

[Skyhilist]

...and if they join the workforce I don't think it makes to call them 'the bourgeois class'.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the working class taking control of society. You might not want to call it 'the dictatorship of the proletariat', but you do (as an anarcho-syndicalist) agree that the working class needs to take over production and distribution, and indeed the direction of society, yes?

Yes of course. I just don't think the term "dictatorship" itself really makes sense because a) I'm not sure how you could wage a dictatorship over the bourgeois if the bourgeois are defined by the exploitation of labor and would therefore by definition no longer exist given that no ones labor would be being exploited and b) I don't see how it can be properly termed a dictatorship if these individuals from the former bourgeois class still have the right to say, vote at community assemblies.

[Blake's Baby]

Yes of course. I just don't think the term "dictatorship" itself really makes sense because a) I'm not sure how you could wage a dictatorship over the bourgeois if the bourgeois are defined by the exploitation of labor and would therefore by definition no longer exist given that no ones labor would be being exploited ...

Except in the situation of the world civil war, there are still a) external bourgeoises, and b) supporters of the status quo ante, who are fighting against the working class; and, while the war is going on, production needs to be geared to win the war, rather than for example providing hover-skateboards to everyone and resculpting the Alps for fun, which will require the working class to organise production along 'non-socialist' lines (ie, for death and destruction rather than social improvement).



...
and b) I don't see how it can be properly termed a dictatorship if these individuals from the former bourgeois class still have the right to say, vote at community assemblies.

Except 'former' bourgeoises will be part of the working class anyway, it's current bourgeoises and supporters of capitalism that the dictatorship will have to organise against. Workers (even ex-capitalists) are workers; but there are other classes in society - artisans an peasants, for example - do they get to keep their property? Do they get to form soviets?

There are also a whole lot of 'non-working' workers (the elderly, the infirm) who can't make a valid productive contribution; the 'working' working class also works for these people (else, all the kids and old people and sick people die) while at the same time making the weapons that are being used by the militias/Red Army (other non-working workers) to fight the capitalists (which means there are still classes, there are still states, and there is still expropriation... so still a form of capitalism).

The revolution is likely to be a very messy business. I don't much fancy declaring the end of property and the next day inviting Rupert Murdoch and Donald Trump to join a soviet. I think a much better idea is if the working class organises to take power from these people, rather than just assuming they'll play nice.

[Brotto Rühle]

Yes of course. I just don't think the term "dictatorship" itself really makes sense because a) I'm not sure how you could wage a dictatorship over the bourgeois if the bourgeois are defined by the exploitation of labor and would therefore by definition no longer exist given that no ones labor would be being exploited and b) I don't see how it can be properly termed a dictatorship if these individuals from the former bourgeois class still have the right to say, vote at community assemblies.

Global system, global class, will want to wrest any workers control back into their hands. Simple enough?

[Brutus]

From a 1952 pamphlet- The USSR: 100 Questions Answered


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

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

What then, is the difference between communism and socialism?

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

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

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

Under socialism there still exist the survivals of capitalism in the minds of some members of society (indifference towards work, a tendency to take all you can get from society while giving as little as you can get away with, etc.). Under communism all survivals of capitalism will disappear. Under communism work is no longer merely a means of livelihood, but man's primary need in life.

[Skyhilist]

Except in the situation of the world civil war, there are still a) external bourgeoises

From other regions that haven't undergone revolution, that makes sense.
But in what ways would we be waging a dictatorship against these people? I mean we'd be helping to fight against them, but how is that any different from any other war?


and b) supporters of the status quo ante, who are fighting against the working class

Do you mean in the region that have already undergone seizure of the means of production by the working class? If so, shouldn't these people be a minority (because mass class consciousness would've been needed to carry this task out), and therefore marginalized anyways without needed to exclude them from say, community assemblies, and wage some type of dictatorship over them?


and, while the war is going on, production needs to be geared to win the war, rather than for example providing hover-skateboards to everyone and resculpting the Alps for fun, which will require the working class to organise production along 'non-socialist' lines (ie, for death and destruction rather than social improvement).

Yes, this makes sense as an example of why we might not want to call society "socialist" yet while still fighting (which I agree), but I don't really see why this makes society any more of a dictatorship. If there is mass class consciousness, the majority should know that this type of war-based action is necessary, without any dictatorships needing to be waged on anyone in the community it seems.


Except 'former' bourgeoises will be part of the working class anyway, it's current bourgeoises and supporters of capitalism that the dictatorship will have to organise against. Workers (even ex-capitalists) are workers; but there are other classes in society

Ok so the current bourgeois in region A cease to exist. So the workers in region A are helping the workers in region B fight against the bourgeois in region B (who have not yet been overthrown). How exactly is that a dictatorship? If the working class wins, the bourgeois in region B become the former bourgeois and can still participate in things. They haven't lost any rights, and they aren't being ruled over after they've lost. I wouldn't classify that a dictatorship.


artisans an peasants, for example - do they get to keep their property?

Wait why would an artisan be considered any different from any other worker that owns the means of production? And if peasants are able bodied and capable of working then why not just allocate jobs to them and if they choose not to take them then they don't reap the benefits of production as non-workers? If some choose not to and class differences still exist, then ok, but how does that make it a dictatorship?


There are also a whole lot of 'non-working' workers (the elderly, the infirm) who can't make a valid productive contribution; the 'working' working class also works for these people (else, all the kids and old people and sick people die) while at the same time making the weapons that are being used by the militias/Red Army (other non-working workers) to fight the capitalists (which means there are still classes, there are still states, and there is still expropriation... so still a form of capitalism).

Ok I'm not arguing that socialism in one country is a legitimate thing. I never saw believing in SiOC as a prerequisite for being anarchist. I acknowledge that it's still a (transitional) phase of capitalism, I just wouldn't call it the same thing as Marxists because I'm not convinced the term DoTP makes sense. Also, could you explain the bolded part? I understand there are still states in the places that haven't undergone revolution... but how are there still states in the areas that already have if they're run directly by the workers? If it's because you're defining a state as any organ of class rule, then I must disagree with that assessment.


The revolution is likely to be a very messy business. I don't much fancy declaring the end of property and the next day inviting Rupert Murdoch and Donald Trump to join a soviet. I think a much better idea is if the working class organises to take power from these people, rather than just assuming they'll play nice.

Lol I don't think it'd involve invitations. It'd basically be (I'd imagine), find the workplaces where each worker is doing the most amount of work, and allow for more able bodied but previously non-working people to join. If they chose not too, then they're excluded, but by their own choice.

Oh another thing, the differences between soviets and syndicates seem kind of arbitrary other than how the fighting is done. Are there any real differences beyond this?

[Skyhilist]

Global system, global class, will want to wrest any workers control back into their hands. Simple enough?

So it's a dictatorship because they aren't allowed to control the means of production and have it taken away from them? But if they become workers, then they control the means of production just as much as any other worker. I still don't think given that that it makes sense to call it a dictatorship. If they (the bourgeois) continue fighting and wont join the workforce, then they're basically choosing not to have a say in the way things get done.

[Blake's Baby]

From other regions that haven't undergone revolution, that makes sense.
But in what ways would we be waging a dictatorship against these people? I mean we'd be helping to fight against them, but how is that any different from any other war?...

It isn't; how in this sense is 'the dictatorship of the proletariat' different to any otehr dictatorship (say, 'the dictatorship of capital)?



...
Do you mean in the region that have already undergone seizure of the means of production by the working class? If so, shouldn't these people be a minority (because mass class consciousness would've been needed to carry this task out), and therefore marginalized anyways without needed to exclude them from say, community assemblies, and wage some type of dictatorship over them?...

I'm sorry, are you serious? There won't be many people trying to overthrow the proletarian power, therefore we should allow them be part of the proletarian power?



...
Yes, this makes sense as an example of why we might not want to call society "socialist" yet while still fighting (which I agree), but I don't really see why this makes society any more of a dictatorship. If there is mass class consciousness, the majority should know that this type of war-based action is necessary, without any dictatorships needing to be waged on anyone in the community it seems...

You think that the world civil war will be accomplished without the necessity of, for example, any sequestrations? I don't know if there's ever been a totally voluntary war, but I doubt the world civil war will be one either.



...
Ok so the current bourgeois in region A cease to exist. So the workers in region A are helping the workers in region B fight against the bourgeois in region B (who have not yet been overthrown). How exactly is that a dictatorship? If the working class wins, the bourgeois in region B become the former bourgeois and can still participate in things. They haven't lost any rights, and they aren't being ruled over after they've lost. I wouldn't classify that a dictatorship...

It's a dictatorship while the working class (a global class) is struggling against the bourgeoisie (a global class) until one or other is victorious. It's not the working class saying 'hey! Bourgies! We know you're trying to re-enslave us and indeed hiring goons to kill us, why don't you come down to the workers' councils and vote against whatever we do to try to stop you!'



...
Wait why would an artisan be considered any different from any other worker that owns the means of production? ...

What do you mean 'any other worker that owns the means of production'? If they 'own the means of production' they are, by definition, not proletarians (who own nothing but their labour power, and maybe their children).


...
And if peasants are able bodied and capable of working then why not just allocate jobs to them and if they choose not to take them then they don't reap the benefits of production as non-workers? If some choose not to and class differences still exist, then ok, but how does that make it a dictatorship?...

Because other classes are excluded, and the working class exercises power. How is that not a dictatorship?



...
Ok I'm not arguing that socialism in one country is a legitimate thing. I never saw believing in SiOC as a prerequisite for being anarchist. I acknowledge that it's still a (transitional) phase of capitalism, I just wouldn't call it the same thing as Marxists because I'm not convinced the term DoTP makes sense. Also, could you explain the bolded part? I understand there are still states in the places that haven't undergone revolution... but how are there still states in the areas that already have if they're run directly by the workers? If it's because you're defining a state as any organ of class rule, then I must disagree with that assessment...

Fine, you don't think the DotP is a state. What then is your objection to it?




Lol I don't think it'd involve invitations. It'd basically be (I'd imagine), find the workplaces where each worker is doing the most amount of work, and allow for more able bodied but previously non-working people to join. If they chose not too, then they're excluded, but by their own choice.

Oh another thing, the differences between soviets and syndicates seem kind of arbitrary other than how the fighting is done. Are there any real differences beyond this?

I'm really not sure what you're trying to get at with this. Do the previous bourgeoises actually have to give up fighting against the working class? Or is it OK if they continue to try and squash the revolution while they are part of the decision-making apparatus?

[robbo203]

The whole talk about the state should be dropped, especially since the Commune, which was no longer a state in the proper sense of the word. The "people's state" has been thrown in our faces by the anarchists to the point of disgust, although already Marx's book against Proudhon[37] and later the Communist Manifesto directly declare that with the introduction of the socialist order of society the state will dissolve of itself [sich von selbst auflöst ] and disappear.


Engel's letter to August Bebel March 18-28, 1875

[Skyhilist]

It isn't; how in this sense is 'the dictatorship of the proletariat' different to any other dictatorship (say, 'the dictatorship of capital)?

Well, because not everyone has the opportunity to participate in the "the dictatorship of capital."

Suppose we think of the DoTP as a monarchy (it's nothing close of course, but hear me out). The throne that the king (the proletariat) sits upon (controls), is the the means of production. But anyone who chooses to become a worker will have control over the means of production under DoTP (just shared with all the other workers). If anyone can sit in the Kings throne should they want to, it's hardly something that only certain people (Kings) can have.

Usually dictatorships don't say "you too have can have as much power in the dictatorship as we have if you do x,y,z."


I'm sorry, are you serious? There won't be many people trying to overthrow the proletarian power, therefore we should allow them be part of the proletarian power?

If they choose to become workers, why shouldn't they? It would be nice if we has some easy foolproof way to "cleanse all the reactionary/bourgeois ideologies" from things like workers assemblies. When we try to develop such a thing though, problems arise. Because after all, who is to say just how bourgeois an individual someone is (as to petite-bourgeois) and determine how bourgeois an individual can be (in terms of both what they align their interests with and whether whey controlled production pre-revolution) before they are excluded? There are no objective measures for such things. Surely if we try to exclude people based on their roles in society pre-revolution, we will reach some subjective and likely arbitrary means of excluding people.

By the way, what do you think this is going to harm anyways if the (former) bourgeois are a minority? What exactly is their sales pitch going to be to the class conscious workers? "Hey, remember when I enslaved you with wages, controlled the laws, and made it so that some of you didn't even have security over where your next meal was going to come from? That was real swell, I think we should reinstate that." Come on, you really think because we let the former bourgeois (who represent what, a fraction of a percent of the population?) vote on things when they choose to become workers, we're jeopardizing the future of socialism? As if they're somehow going to convince masses of class conscious workers that they were actually better off enslaved?


You think that the world civil war will be accomplished without the necessity of, for example, any sequestrations? I don't know if there's ever been a totally voluntary war, but I doubt the world civil war will be one either.

Sorry, could you please clarify what you mean here? I'm not really sure what you mean by 'voluntary war' or 'sequestrations' in this context (my apologies).


It's a dictatorship while the working class (a global class) is struggling against the bourgeoisie (a global class) until one or other is victorious.

But anyone can be a part of the working class after the working class is victorious. Usually just anyone can't choose to be a part of a dictatorship.


It's not the working class saying 'hey! Bourgies! We know you're trying to re-enslave us and indeed hiring goons to kill us, why don't you come down to the workers' councils and vote against whatever we do to try to stop you!'

See my response farther up in this post about why it doesn't make any sense to try to exclude them.


What do you mean 'any other worker that owns the means of production'? If they 'own the means of production' they are, by definition, not proletarians (who own nothing but their labour power, and maybe their children).

No I mean after/during the revolution, not before. After the proletarians seize the means of production from the bourgeois they will of course control the means of production.


Because other classes are excluded, and the working class exercises power. How is that not a dictatorship?

Because anyone can be a part of it.


Fine, you don't think the DotP is a state. What then is your objection to it?

Well seeing as it's always been defined as a state, it doesn't make it any sense to still call it DoTP if it's not actually a state.


I'm really not sure what you're trying to get at with this.

Well, the last part of it was actual a completely separate and non-rhetorical question if that's part of what you mean.


Do the previous bourgeoises actually have to give up fighting against the working class? Or is it OK if they continue to try and squash the revolution while they are part of the decision-making apparatus?

No it's not OK, but they're going to continue to do that no matter what. It's not like giving an additional <1% of the population the right to have a vote in things is going to give them some great platform or the opportunity to overthrow everything more easily.

[d3crypt]

Does a federation of workers councils count as a state?

[robbo203]

Yes of course. I just don't think the term "dictatorship" itself really makes sense because a) I'm not sure how you could wage a dictatorship over the bourgeois if the bourgeois are defined by the exploitation of labor and would therefore by definition no longer exist given that no ones labor would be being exploited and b) I don't see how it can be properly termed a dictatorship if these individuals from the former bourgeois class still have the right to say, vote at community assemblies.

More puzzling still - if the bourgeosie no longer exist by virtue of the fact that they no longer own the means of production then how can a proletariat exist? After all, a proletariat exists only because a bougeosie exists and vice versa. They are two sides of the same coin. Strictly speaking, this should be called the dictatorship of the Ex-proletariat.

On the other hand, if the bourgeoisie do still own the means of production how can this possibly be a called a dictatorship of the proletariat? How can slaves "dictate" to the slave owners? They can only do so, surely, insofar as they are no longer slaves. Having captured political power, is it conceivable that a revolutionary proletariat would allow the bourgeosie to continue to monopoliise the means of production for even one second longer? I dont think thats realistic and I dont see how the rules of private property could even function under these circumstances. In fact I would contend that these rules would be well on the way to breaking down some time before the capture of political power by a socialist working class majority when the entire social climate would by then have been radicallised and transformed and the expectation of a future socialist society would be hanging in the very air itself

Not only that, this whole conception seems to be at variance with with Marx's own materialist conception of history which vests the economic base with primacy over its superstructure. To put it differently , the class that owns the means of production is by virtue of that fact, politically dominant as well. Thats how it shores up its class ownership of the means of production - via that class institution we call the state

[Blake's Baby]

...

If they choose to become workers, why shouldn't they? It would be nice if we has some easy foolproof way to "cleanse all the reactionary/bourgeois ideologies" from things like workers assemblies. When we try to develop such a thing though, problems arise. Because after all, who is to say just how bourgeois an individual someone is (as to petite-bourgeois) and determine how bourgeois an individual can be (in terms of both what they align their interests with and whether whey controlled production pre-revolution) before they are excluded? There are no objective measures for such things...

Yes, there really are: do they want to shoot workers in the head to protct 'their' property?

How is that not 'objective'?



...
Surely if we try to exclude people based on their roles in society pre-revolution, we will reach some subjective and likely arbitrary means of excluding people...

Well, has this all been a misunderstanding?

Please quote anything I have posted in this thread where I say that people's "roles in society pre-revolution" should determine the attitude of the working class to them.