Socialist Economy

[Laughingasylum]

Hey
I've been a Marxist for a few years now and being in a few groups but I've always had one question that no one has been able to answer simple or if at all. That is, after the workers have gained control of the state and smashed the Capitalist state machinery, what would a Socialist system look like? As in how would factory/shops/miners/industry commits work and interact with each other? I've got a basic understanding of it but I'm dyspraxic so when I try to explain it to other people it's really hard for me to get it across. So can someone please explain the idea of how a Socialist Economy would work in the most basic way?
Many thanks Comrades!

[Remus Bleys]

Its one of those get to it when we get to it. It will be radically different, and the workers will control it.
Anything else is speculation.

[Laughingasylum]

I understand that but there must be a basic idea of what we would like to see happen. I've been told to look at the Spanish Revolution but don't know any good books or websites to read up on how they organised themselves.

[reb]

You should read the first section of Rosa Luxemburg's "What is Economics?", but in short, we would have a free association of people with the means of production held in common. If we need something, then we decide communally about it, how to go about it, what we need for it, who has those things, etc, then we fire messages down the line. The intermediary of money has been abolished as well as abstract labor and the commodity form. How this organization and distribution falls into place doesn't matter, what does matter is the underlying relations to production that we experience. The superstructure grows out of the base.

[RedMaterialist]

Hey
I've been a Marxist for a few years now and being in a few groups but I've always had one question that no one has been able to answer simple or if at all. That is, after the workers have gained control of the state and smashed the Capitalist state machinery, what would a Socialist system look like? As in how would factory/shops/miners/industry commits work and interact with each other? I've got a basic understanding of it but I'm dyspraxic so when I try to explain it to other people it's really hard for me to get it across. So can someone please explain the idea of how a Socialist Economy would work in the most basic way?
Many thanks Comrades!

You might want to read Marx's Ctitique of the Gotha Programme. Marx argues that the socialist economy would retain many of the characteristics of the capitalist economy, such as wages, prices, etc., except with the working class in control (dictatorship of the proletariat.) I think it would look like a modern corporation, like Microsoft, except with the workers in control instead of private shareholders and managers.

Another example,and I am serious, is the U.S. professional football team, the Green Bay Packers. Back in the 20s the NFL allowed fans to own a football team. That is how the Packers got started. No one fan could own more than about 10%. It is still that way today. The fans determine things like whether the team will move and whether a new stadium will be built, etc. They mostly leave the day to day operation to professional managers. When the NFL got organized it refused to allow this system to spread (for good reason,) except for the Green Bay Packers, because the team was so popular.

In other words, you have a means of production (the football team, very productive of entertainment) owned by the people, i.e., the fans. I think it is the very definition of socialism. The players would still be 'workers' but also very highly paid entertainers. You would still have the problem of concussions, injuries, career length. But the players are represented by a very strong union.

Another example, to me, is the U.S. Social Security system. You have a means of production, a pension, retirement system (which is very common in private business,) social security, owned by the people and managed on their behalf by a, more or less, democratically representative government.

I think when the lunatic right wing in the U.S. call social security a socialist system that they are not entirely wrong.

Also, there are lots of cooperatives around the U.S. like Mondragon in Spain.

[Brotto Rühle]

You might want to read Marx's Ctitique of the Gotha Programme. Marx argues that the socialist economy would retain many of the characteristics of the capitalist economy, such as wages, prices, etc., except with the working class in control (dictatorship of the proletariat.) I think it would look like a modern corporation, like Microsoft, except with the workers in control instead of private shareholders and managers.

Another example,and I am serious, is the U.S. professional football team, the Green Bay Packers. Back in the 20s the NFL allowed fans to own a football team. That is how the Packers got started. No one fan could own more than about 10%. It is still that way today. The fans determine things like whether the team will move and whether a new stadium will be built, etc. They mostly leave the day to day operation to professional managers. When the NFL got organized it refused to allow this system to spread (for good reason,) except for the Green Bay Packers, because the team was so popular.

In other words, you have a means of production (the football team, very productive of entertainment) owned by the people, i.e., the fans. I think it is the very definition of socialism. The players would still be 'workers' but also very highly paid entertainers. You would still have the problem of concussions, injuries, career length. But the players are represented by a very strong union.

Another example, to me, is the U.S. Social Security system. You have a means of production, a pension, retirement system (which is very common in private business,) social security, owned by the people and managed on their behalf by a, more or less, democratically representative government.

I think when the lunatic right wing in the U.S. call social security a socialist system that they are not entirely wrong.

Also, there are lots of cooperatives around the U.S. like Mondragon in Spain.

You're so unbelievablly wrong.

[reb]

You might want to read Marx's Ctitique of the Gotha Programme. Marx argues that the socialist economy would retain many of the characteristics of the capitalist economy, such as wages, prices, etc., except with the working class in control (dictatorship of the proletariat.) I think it would look like a modern corporation, like Microsoft, except with the workers in control instead of private shareholders and managers.

You're wrong and you're repeating some common errors by people who've never read Marx themselves and/or wish to present the lowest phase of communism as retaining some element of the capitalist mode of production. Marx does not say that there will be wages or prices. That would be completely against marxian logic because wage-labor, and wages, represent a social-relation that exists when one group of people are alienated from the means of production and have to mediate this through abstract labor in the form of money, etc etc etc. You're fundamentally redefining what communism means and what revolution means and you're presenting a position close to the stalinists.

The rest of your post echoes ideas of social-democracy and market-socialism as well.

[Zukunftsmusik]

In other words, you have a means of production (the football team, very productive of entertainment) owned by the people, i.e., the fans. I think it is the very definition of socialism.

A wonder we all don't live in socialism, then.

[Five Year Plan]

You might want to read Marx's Ctitique of the Gotha Programme. Marx argues that the socialist economy would retain many of the characteristics of the capitalist economy, such as wages, prices, etc., except with the working class in control (dictatorship of the proletariat.) I think it would look like a modern corporation, like Microsoft, except with the workers in control instead of private shareholders and managers.

Another example,and I am serious, is the U.S. professional football team, the Green Bay Packers. Back in the 20s the NFL allowed fans to own a football team. That is how the Packers got started. No one fan could own more than about 10%. It is still that way today. The fans determine things like whether the team will move and whether a new stadium will be built, etc. They mostly leave the day to day operation to professional managers. When the NFL got organized it refused to allow this system to spread (for good reason,) except for the Green Bay Packers, because the team was so popular.

In other words, you have a means of production (the football team, very productive of entertainment) owned by the people, i.e., the fans. I think it is the very definition of socialism. The players would still be 'workers' but also very highly paid entertainers. You would still have the problem of concussions, injuries, career length. But the players are represented by a very strong union.

Another example, to me, is the U.S. Social Security system. You have a means of production, a pension, retirement system (which is very common in private business,) social security, owned by the people and managed on their behalf by a, more or less, democratically representative government.

I think when the lunatic right wing in the U.S. call social security a socialist system that they are not entirely wrong.

Also, there are lots of cooperatives around the U.S. like Mondragon in Spain.

The other comrades in this thread are correct. Marx's vision of socialism was a classless society without wages or value relations. You are conflating the transition from capitalism to socialism, which takes place under the dictatorship of the proletariat following a revolution, with socialism itself.

[Dave B]

FYI there is a pre-prepared list of list of what various bod's thought socialism/communism was or is below.

Incidentally, as demonstrated, socialism and communism were being used interchangeably by as various characters as Uncle Joe in 1906 and Sylvia in 1922;

1844 Letter from Engels to Marx in Paris


The Teutons are all still very muddled about the practicability of communism; to dispose of this absurdity I intend to write a short pamphlet showing that communism has already been put into practice and describing in popular terms how this is at present being done in England and America. [12] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#n12) The thing will take me three days or so, and should prove very enlightening for these fellows. I’ve already observed this when talking to people here.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/letters/44_10_01.htm#n12

Eg.


Frederick Engels Description of Recently Founded Communist Colonies Still in Existence; Written: in mid-October 1844




Amongst these people no one is obliged to work against his will, and no one seeks work in vain. They have no poor-houses and infirmaries, having not a single person poor and destitute, nor any abandoned widows and orphans; all their needs are met and they need fear no want. In their ten towns there is not a single gendarme or police officer, no judge, lawyer or soldier, no prison or penitentiary; and yet there is proper order in all their affairs. The laws of the land are not for them and as far as they are concerned could just as well be abolished and nobody would notice any difference for they are the most peaceable citizens and have never yielded a single criminal for the prisons. They enjoy, as we said, the most absolute community of goods and have no trade and no money among themselves.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/10/15.htm




And from Lenin;
V. I. Lenin, From the Destruction of the Old Social System, To the Creation of the New



Communist labour in the narrower and stricter sense of the term is labour performed gratis for the benefit of society, labour performed not as a definite duty, not for the purpose of obtaining a right to certain products, not according to previously established and legally fixed quotas, but voluntary labour, irrespective of quotas;

it is labour performed without expectation of reward, without reward as a condition, labour performed because it has become a habit to work for the common good, and because of a conscious realisation (that has become a habit) of the necessity of working for the common good—labour as the requirement of a healthy organism.

It must be clear to everybody that we, i.e., our society, our social system, are still a very long way from the application of this form of labour on a broad, really mass scale.


But the very fact that this question has been raised, and raised both by the whole of the advanced proletariat (the Communist Party and the trade unions) and by the state authorities, is a step in this direction.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/apr/11.htm

Trotsky;

Leon Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed, Chapter 3, Socialism and the State



The material premise of communism should be so high a development of the economic powers of man that productive labor, having ceased to be a burden, will not require any goad, and the distribution of life’s goods, existing in continual abundance, will not demand – as it does not now in any well-off family or “decent” boarding-house – any control except that of education, habit and social opinion. Speaking frankly, I think it would be pretty dull-witted to consider such a really modest perspective “utopian.”


http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch03.htm

Trotsky’s Terrorism and Communism




The Mensheviks are against this. This is quite comprehensible, because in reality they are against the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is to this, in the long run, that the whole question is reduced. The Kautskians are against the dictatorship of the proletariat, and are thereby against all its consequences.

Both economic and political compulsion are only forms of the expression of the dictatorship of the working class in two closely connected regions. True, Abramovich demonstrated to us most learnedly that under Socialism there will be no compulsion, that the principle of compulsion contradicts Socialism, that under Socialism we shall be moved by the feeling of duty, the habit of working, the attractiveness of labor, etc., etc. This is unquestionable.

Only this unquestionable truth must be a little extended. In point of fact, under Socialism there will not exist the apparatus of compulsion itself, namely, the State: for it will have melted away entirely into a producing and consuming commune. None the less, the road to Socialism lies through a period of the highest possible intensification of the principle of the State. And you and I are just passing through that period. Just as a lamp, before going out, shoots up in a brilliant flame, so the State, before disappearing, assumes the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the most ruthless form of State, which embraces the life of the citizens authoritatively in every direction. Now just that insignificant little fact – that historical step of the State dictatorship – Abramovich, and in his person the whole of Menshevism, did not notice; and consequently, he has fallen over it.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1920/terrcomm/ch08.htm


Karl Kautsky IV. THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE FUTURE 9. Division of Products in the Future State.

We can conceive a time when science shall have raised industry to such a high level if productivity that everything wanted by man will be produced in great abundance. In such a case, the formula, “To each according to his needs,” would be applied as a matter of course and without difficulty. On the other hand, not even the profoundest conviction of the justice of this formula would be able to put it into practice if the productivity of labor remained so low that the proceeds of the most excessive toil could produce only the bare necessities………..
http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1892/erfurt/ch04a.htm



Kuatsky;Karl Kautsky The Labour Revolution
III. The Economic Revolution X. MONEY


Besides this rigid allocation of an equal measure of the necessaries and enjoyments of life to each individual, another form of Socialism without money is conceivable, the Leninite interpretation of what Marx described as the second phase of communism: each to produce of his own accord as much as he can, the productivity of labour being so high and the quantity and variety of products so immense that everyone may be trusted to take what he needs. For this purpose money would not be needed.

We have not yet progressed so far as this. At present we are unable to divine whether we shall ever reach this state. But that Socialism with which we are alone concerned to-day, whose features we can discern with some precision from the indications that already exist, will unfortunately not have this enviable freedom and abundance at its disposal, and will therefore not be able to do without money.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1924/labour/ch03_j.htm#sb


Hyndman;

Henry Mayers Hyndman The Record of an Adventurous Life
Chapter XV Start of Social Democracy


“A much more serious objection to Kropotkin and other Anarchists is their wholly unscrupulous habit of reiterating statements that have been repeatedly proved to be incorrect, and even outrageous, by the men and women to whom they are attributed. Time after time I have told Kropotkin, time after time has he read it in print, that Social-Democrats work for the complete overthrow of the wages system. He has admitted this to be so. But a month or so afterwards the same old oft-refuted misrepresentation appears in the same old authoritative fashion, as if no refutation of the calumny, that we wish to maintain wage-slavery, had ever been made.”



http://www.marxists.org/archive/hyndman/1911/adventure/chap15.html


Peter Kropotkin 1920
The Wage System

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/kropotkin-peter/1920/wage.htm



J. V. Stalin ANARCHISM or SOCIALISM? 1906



Future society will be socialist society. This means also that, with the abolition of exploitation commodity production and buying and selling will also be abolished and, therefore, there will be no room for buyers and sellers of labour power, for employers and employed -- there will be only free workers.
Future society will be socialist society. This means, lastly, that in that society the abolition of wage-labour will be accompanied by the complete abolition of the private ownership of the instruments and means of production; there will be neither poor proletarians nor rich capitalists -- there will be only workers who collectively own all the land and minerals, all the forests, all the factories and mills, all the railways, etc.


As you see, the main purpose of production in the future will be to satisfy the needs of society and not to produce goods for sale in order to increase the profits of the capitalists. Where there will be no room for commodity production, struggle for profits, etc.

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


page 337

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


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


"The working class in the course of its development Will substitute for the old bourgeois society an association which will exclude classes and their antagonism, and there will be no more political power properly so-called . . . " (see The Poverty of Philosophy).[89 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#en89)]

That is why Engels said in 1884:

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

(see The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State).[

At the same time, it is self-evident that for the purpose of administering public affairs there will have to be in socialist society, in addition to local offices which

page 338

will collect all sorts of information, a central statistical bureau, which will collect information about the needs of the whole of society, and then distribute the various kinds of work among the working people accordingly. It will also be necessary to hold conferences, and particularly congresses, the decisions of which will certainly be binding upon the comrades in the minority until the next congress is held.


Lastly, it is obvious that free and comradely labour should result in an equally comradely, and complete, satisfaction of all needs in the future socialist society This means that if future society demands from each of its members as much labour as he can perform, it, in its turn, must provide each member with all the products he needs. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! -- such is the basis upon which the future collectivist system must be created. It goes without saying that in the first stage of socialism, when elements who have not yet grown accustomed to work are being drawn into the new way of life, when the productive forces also will not yet have been sufficiently developed and there will still be "dirty" and "clean" work to do, the application of the principle: "to each according to his needs," will undoubtelly be greatly hindered and, as a consequence, society will be obliged temporarily to take some other path, a middle path. But it is also clear that when future society runs into its groove, when the survivals of capitalism will have been eradicated, the only principle that will conform to socialist society will be the one pointed out above.
That is why Marx said in 1875:


page 339


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


Such, in general, is the picture of future socialist society according to the theory of Marx.

This is all very well. But is the achievement of socialism conceivable? Can we assume that man will rid himself of his "savage habits"?

Or again: if everybody receives according to his needs, can we assume that the level of the productive forces of socialist society will be adequate for this?
Socialist society presupposes an adequate development of productive forces and socialist consciousness among men, their socialist enlightenment. At the present time the development of productive forces is hindered by the existence of capitalist property, but if we bear in mind that this capitalist property will not exist in future society, it is self-evident that the productive forces will increase tenfold. Nor must it be forgotten that in future society the hundreds of thousands of present-day parasites, and also the unemployed, will set to work and augment the ranks of the working people; and this will greatly stimulate the development of the

page 340

productive forces. As regards men's "savage" sentiments and opinions, these are not as eternal as some people imagine; there was a time, under primitive communism, when man did not recognise private property; there came a time, the time of individualistic production, when private property dominated the hearts and minds of men; a new time is coming, the time of socialist production -- will it be surprising if the hearts and minds of men become imbued with socialist strivings? Does not being determine the "sentiments" and opinions of men?


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

Nikolai Bukharin Programme of the World Revolution
Chapter XV The End of the Power of Money.

“State Finances” and Financial Economy in the Soviet Republic

We have seen, on the other hand, that when production and distribution are thoroughly organised, money will play no part whatever, and as a matter of course no kind of money dues will be demanded from anyone. Money will have generally become unnecessary. finance will become extinct.


We repeat that that time is a long way off yet. There can be no talk of it in the near future. For the present we must find means for public finance. But we are already taking steps leading to the abolition of the money system. Society is being transformed into one huge labour organisation or company to produce and distribute what is already produced without the agency of gold coinage or paper money. The end of the power of money is imminent.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1918/worldrev/ch15.html

20 Distribution in the communist system

The communist method of production presupposes in addition that production is not for the market, but for use. Under com munism, it is no longer the individual manufacturer or the individual peasant who produces; the work of production is effected by the gigantic cooperative as a whole. In consequence of this change, we no longer have commodities, but only products. These products are not exchanged one for another; they are neither bought nor sold. They are simply stored in the com munal warehouses, and are subsequently delivered to those who need them. In such conditions, money will no longer be re quired. 'How can that be?' some of you will ask. 'In that case one person will get too much and another too little. What sense is there in such a method of distribution?' The answer is as follows. At first, doubtless, and perhaps for twenty or thirty years, it will be necessary to have various regulations.

Maybe certain products will only be supplied to those persons who have a special entry in their work-book or on their work-card. Subsequently, when communist society has been consolidated and fully developed, no such regulations will be needed. There will be an ample quantity of all products, our present wounds will long since have been healed, and everyone will be able to get just as much as he needs. 'But will not people find it to their interest to take more than they need?' Certainly not. Today, for example, no one thinks it worth while when he wants one seat in a tram, to take three tickets and keep two places empty. It will be just the same in the case of all products. A person will take from the communal storehouse precisely as much as he needs, no more.

No one will have any interest in taking more than he wants in order to sell the surplus to others, since all these others can satisfy their needs whenever they please. Money will then have no value. Our meaning is that at the outset, in the first days of communist society, products will probably be distributed in accordance with the amount of work done by the applicant; at a later stage, however, they will simply be supplied according to the needs of the comrades.
It has often been contended that in the future society everyone will have the right to the full product of his labour. 'What you have made by your labour, that you will receive.' This is false. It would never be possible to realize it fully. Why not? For this reason, that if everyone were to receive the full product of his labour, there would never be any possibility of developing, expanding, and improving production.

Part of the work done must always be devoted to the development and improvement of production. If we had to consume and to use up everything we have produced, then we could never produce machines, for these cannot be eaten or worn. But it is obvious that the bettering of life will go hand in hand with the extension and improvement of machinery. It is plain that more and more machines must continually be produced. Now this implies that part of the labour which has been incorporated in the machines will not be returned to the person who has done the work. It implies that no one can ever receive the full product of his labour. But nothing of the kind is necessary. With the aid of good machinery, production will be so arranged that all needs will be satisfied.


To sum up, at the outset products will be distributed in proportion to the work done (which does not mean that the worker will receive 'the full product of his labour'); subsequently, products will be distributed according to need, for there will be an abundance of everything.
§ 21 Administration in the communist system

In a communist society there will be no classes. But if there will be no classes, this implies that in communist society there will likewise be no State.
We have previously seen that the State is a class organization of the rulers. The State is always directed by one class against the other. A bourgeois State


http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1920/abc/03.htm


The words Socialism and Communism have the same meaning. They indicate a condition of society in which the wealth of the community: the land and the means of production, distribution and transport are held in common, production being for use and not for profit.


Socialism being an ideal towards which we are working, it is natural that there should be some differences of opinion in that future society. Since we are living under Capitalism it is natural that many people’s ideas of Socialism should be coloured by their experiences of life under the present system. We must not be surprised that some who recognise the present system is bad should yet lack the imagination to realise the possibility of abolishing all the institutions of Capitalist society. Nevertheless there can be no real advantage in setting up a half-way-house to socialism. A combination of Socialism and Capitalism would produce all sorts of injustice, difficulty and waste. Those who happen to suffer under the anomalies would continually struggle for a return to the old system.



Full and complete Socialism entails the total abolition of money, buying and selling, and the wages system.



It means the community must set itself the task of providing rather more than the people can use of all the things that the people need and desire, and of supplying these when and as the people require them.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/pankhurst-sylvia/1923/future-society.htm





(http://www.marxists.org/archive/pankhurst-sylvia/1923/future-society.htm)

[ckaihatsu]

In other words, you have a means of production (the [Green Bay Packers] football team, very productive of entertainment) owned by the people, i.e., the fans. I think it is the very definition of socialism. The players would still be 'workers' but also very highly paid entertainers. You would still have the problem of concussions, injuries, career length. But the players are represented by a very strong union.


For your analogy to be correct, all NFL football players would have to be equal co-owners of all of the NFL.

And even then it would still be problematic -- as all worker-owned companies are -- because the larger capitalist system would continue to provide incentives for collective self-exploitation (as against other popular spectator sports).





Another example, to me, is the U.S. Social Security system. You have a means of production, a pension, retirement system (which is very common in private business,) social security, owned by the people and managed on their behalf by a, more or less, democratically representative government.


A governmental tax base is *not* a 'means of production', like factories. What you're describing is *populism*, not socialism.

[RedMaterialist]

Here is Marx from the Gotha Programme:

"What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges."

"But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society."

The defects being different pay for different work

It is not necessary for the entire economy to be socialist before one part of it is. Part of capitalist economy remained feudal until around 1789. Serfdom wasn't abolished in Russia until the 19th century. The US economy was part slave part capitalist until 1865. One part of the NFL is socially owned, the rest of the teams are not. So?

Insurance plans are a typical part of modern capitalism. "Means of production" is not limited to factories. Populism? sure. the social security system is very popular. Just don't call is socialist, even though it is.

[RedMaterialist]

The other comrades in this thread are correct. Marx's vision of socialism was a classless society without wages or value relations. You are conflating the transition from capitalism to socialism, which takes place under the dictatorship of the proletariat following a revolution, with socialism itself.

What I am describing is the economic condition during the transition. Marx saw the dictatorship of the proletariat as a class dictatorship used to suppress and destroy the bourgeois classes. The classless society only occurs after the destruction of the bourgeois classes.

[RedMaterialist]

You're so unbelievablly wrong.

Allright, you describe for the OP a specific, concrete example of a socialist enterprise.

[Five Year Plan]

What I am describing is the economic condition during the transition. Marx saw the dictatorship of the proletariat as a class dictatorship used to suppress and destroy the bourgeois classes. The classless society only occurs after the destruction of the bourgeois classes.

The OP was asking about socialism, not the transitional economy under the DotP. And Marx's discussion of labor vouchers in Critique of the Gotha Program is about the lower phase of communism (socialism), not about the transitional economy leading to socialism.

[Brotto Rühle]

The OP was asking about socialism, not the transitional economy under the DotP. And Marx's discussion of labor vouchers in Critique of the Gotha Program is about the lower phase of communism (socialism), not about the transitional economy leading to socialism.

Yeah, Marx never said anything about a "transitional economy", because no such thing can exist.

[Five Year Plan]

Yeah, Marx never said anything about a "transitional economy", because no such thing can exist.

Really? So when Marx wrote in the Critique of the Gotha Program, "Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other," he was deliberately excluding economic transformation? What did he mean by social transformation then, if not the mode of production, which apparently magically morphs in one instantaneous swoop from capitalism to socialism the day after the revolution?

In his The Civil War in France, Marx disabuses of any doubts we might have, clearly laying out a transitional process by which socialism replaces capitalism: "The working class know that they have to pass through different phases of class struggle. They know that the superseding of the economical conditions of the slavery of labor by the conditions of free and associated labor can only be the progressive work of time, ... that they require not only a change of distribution, but a new organization of production, or rather the delivery (setting free) of the social forms of production in present organized labor (engendered by present industry), of the trammels of slavery, of their present class character — and their harmonious national and international coordination. They know that this work of regeneration will be again and again relented and impeded by the resistance of vested interests and class egotisms."

So much for Marx not having any conception of a transitional society. If only you and reb spent as much time reading Marx as you did making baseless one-line claims on revleft about what Marx did and didn't say, you might actually make a substantive contribution to a discussion someday.

You might also want to consider responding to the question I posed at the end of this post about what the exclusion of a transitional economy logically entails: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2681019&postcount=23

Remus, since you seem to be in love with the posts of these two users, you might want to pay attention, too. You might learn something.

[Remus Bleys]

Lol. What? I might learn about nonsensical theory? You here to school us you damned trot?
There much more articulate than I am.

[Five Year Plan]

Lol. What? I might learn about nonsensical theory? You here to school us you damned trot?
There much more articulate than I am.

A non-response that doesn't address either my quotes or my question. This is exactly why I suggested you pay attention. But I guess you only pay attention to people whose views you already agree with, if you can characterize blindly thanking a person's post as paying attention. This is why it is so important to you to mention that I am a Trotskyist as a pretext for not grappling with the substance of my post at all. I'm a Trotskyist, so that must mean that everything I say about everything is just full of shit! Brilliant deduction!

Shutting yourself off from people you disagree with and refusing to engage with their ideas, even critically, is a great way not to learn new things. Who taught you this? Rush Limbaugh's dittoheads?

You are aware you are in the learning section of the forum, right? Talk about irony.

[RedMaterialist]

So much for Marx not having any conception of a transitional society.

A transition implies part capitalism, part socialism, then ultimately, full socialism or communism. What is so odd then about part of a society being socialist and part capitalist. If the society was, in fact, not part one and part the other, then the idea of a transition would make no sense. In the transition from one species to another the intermediate stage has characteristics of both.

[Five Year Plan]

A transition implies part capitalism, part socialism, then ultimately, full socialism or communism. What is so odd then about part of a society being socialist and part capitalist. If the society was, in fact, not part one and part the other, then the idea of a transition would make no sense. In the transition from one species to another the intermediate stage has characteristics of both.

Yes. Characteristics of both are present in the transition period. Socialism is democratic collective self-management of production by all of society, and the replacement of commodity production and value relations with a free association of laborers is a process that occurs over some period of time, not overnight. Marx describes this process in the quote I reproduced from Marx's Civil War in France.

You're not going to have democratic, collective self-management of the economy by all of society the day after the revolutionary DotP consolidates power. How can you, when there are likely to be people who are still antagonistic to the revolution in portions of society? And if you still have class struggle, both domestically and internationally, you're going to have institutionalized hierarchy (i.e., a state) that precludes full self-management within the planning process, which means the persistence of value and commodity forms as constitutive of the production process.

What is weirder to me than a hybrid economy transitioning from capitalism to socialism is the idea that a leap from full-on capitalism to full-fledged socialism can be made instantaneously, bypassing any process of transition at all. It is a conceit that is likely to be indulged only by somebody (presumably very young) not attuned to the monumental, world-historical nature of the task of replacing capitalism with communism.

[reb]

Really? So when Marx wrote in the Critique of the Gotha Program, "Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other," he was deliberately excluding economic transformation?

Transformation is a different word than transition. You can not go through a transition from the law of value being operational and the capitalist mode of production to no law of value and socialism.

[reb]

Here is Marx from the Gotha Programme:

"What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges."

"But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society."

The defects being different pay for different work

It's not pay and it's not wage-labor as that is a social-relation on which capitalism is built. Marx is talking about society after this revolutionary event where the mode of production has changed over from capitalism to socialism where this is freely associated labor. You're repeating Stalinist falsifications regarding wage-labor here and the law of value.


It is not necessary for the entire economy to be socialist before one part of it is. Part of capitalist economy remained feudal until around 1789. Serfdom wasn't abolished in Russia until the 19th century. The US economy was part slave part capitalist until 1865. One part of the NFL is socially owned, the rest of the teams are not. So?

Insurance plans are a typical part of modern capitalism. "Means of production" is not limited to factories. Populism? sure. the social security system is very popular. Just don't call is socialist, even though it is.

Bull, "feudal" economy, and your use of that that nebulous word tells us you're just repeating dogma, can not work along side capitalist economy. Where the two meet the former disintegrates. We either get direct disintegration through formal subsumption or we keep the form of it but it is informally subsumed into the production of value and the capitalist mode of production. The economy of Russia was a capitalist economy with the production of value being the goal. To try to say that it was feudal, or pre-capitalist would be absurd considering that it was one of the biggest economies of the world which traded with other capitalist states.

[RedMaterialist]

"feudal" economy, and your use of that that nebulous word tells us you're just repeating dogma, can not work along side capitalist economy. Where the two meet the former disintegrates.

Feudalism and capitalism existed independently in France for at least two hundred years before the French revolution finally destroyed feudalism.

[RedMaterialist]

Transformation is a different word than transition. You can not go through a transition from the law of value being operational and the capitalist mode of production to no law of value and socialism.

All you're saying is that capitalism can't transition to socialism, but it can transform to socialism. It's a distinction without a difference.

[Brotto Rühle]

All you're saying is that capitalism can't transition to socialism, but it can transform to socialism. It's a distinction without a difference.

You should watch the talk by Andrew Kliman on this very topic, "The Incoherence of a Transitional Society as a Marxian Concept". I have the link.

[Five Year Plan]

Transformation is a different word than transition. You can not go through a transition from the law of value being operational and the capitalist mode of production to no law of value and socialism.

Just like "superficial" and "shallow" both perfectly capture your reply here. They are both different words, right? Yet they mean the exact same thing. Similarly with "transformation" and "transition" in this context. I am not aware of how anybody can read the extended description Marx provides of the process (occurring as a "transformation" over time, or as you might say, a "transition") of socialism being constructed in place of capitalism as "the progressive work of time," and come away with the idea that the process doesn't occur over some definite period of time, thereby constituting a period of transition, rather than being instantaneous. This is why, I guess, you simply ignore the quote altogether and make a silly comment about transformation being a different word than transition, as if Marx originally wrote the words in English in the first place.

[Five Year Plan]

You should watch the talk by Andrew Kliman on this very topic, "The Incoherence of a Transitional Society as a Marxian Concept". I have the link.

Instead of spamming the board with endless references to a video of Andrew Kliman, why don't you respond to my question?

Unless you think the smashing of bourgeois states by workers will occur everywhere at the same time, you are left with the pressing and (for you) uncomfortable question of how to characterize a country that is the first to undergo a workers' revolution. How would you characterize such a society? You can't say that it's socialist, because that would be socialism in one country, but since you absolutely refuse to admit that a society can be in transition under a socialist workers' state while still containing some aspects of capitalism for a time, you are stuck with saying those isolated post-revolution societies are just plain ol' capitalism in all its full glory. You will therefore have to support overthrowing capitalism all over again. It ends up becoming an endless succession of workers' revolutions overthrowing capitalist societies that workers themselves have set up. Until one day, of course, socialist revolutions happens all at once everywhere.

[Brotto Rühle]

Instead of spamming the board with endless references to a video of Andrew Kliman, why don't you respond to my question?

Unless you think the smashing of bourgeois states by workers will occur everywhere at the same time, you are left with the pressing and (for you) uncomfortable question of how to characterize a country that is the first to undergo a workers' revolution. How would you characterize such a society? You can't say that it's socialist, because that would be socialism in one country, but since you absolutely refuse to admit that a society can be in transition under a socialist workers' state while still containing some aspects of capitalism for a time, you are stuck with saying those isolated post-revolution societies are just plain ol' capitalism in all its full glory. You will therefore have to support overthrowing capitalism all over again. It ends up becoming an endless succession of workers' revolutions overthrowing capitalist societies that workers themselves have set up. Until one day, of course, socialist revolutions happens all at once everywhere.
A DOTP operates under the laws of capitalism. The worker remains a wage labourer, are subject to the capitalist contradictions. They will at times be forced to cut their own wages, etc. In essence exploiting themselves.

The DOTP is a political transition to statelessness/classlessness .

[Five Year Plan]

A DOTP operates under the laws of capitalism. The worker remains a wage labourer, are subject to the capitalist contradictions. They will at times be forced to cut their own wages, etc. In essence exploiting themselves.

So in your view the overthrow of the bourgeois state by revolutionary workers and their taking possession of the means of production through their own state has absolutely no relationship whatsoever to the capitalist mode of production? Under such a state capitalism continues untouched in its essentials? Who are the capitalists? The working class that democratically established and supports the workers' state? If they are the capitalists, then who is the working class under this "capitalism"?

More importantly, when and how does capitalism become socialism under your model? All at once when a certain number of countries around the world have had similar revolutions establishing what you would erroneously call "state capitalist" countries? How do you explain the actual process by which transformation/transition occurs?


The DOTP is a political transition to statelessness/classlessness.True, but your problem here is that you are trying to espouse a political transition without a corollary economic transition. The very same reason that a state is necessary just after the revolution is the reason why socialism cannot be established immediately after the revolution. And the very same reason that a dictatorship of the proletariat is no longer necessary toward the onset of socialism is the reason why it makes sense to talk of the preceding period as being one of economic transition, a transition away from classes and class struggle dictating production decisions and toward democratically and collectively controlled production among the associated producers.

[Remus Bleys]

Just saw this. Was on my phone at the time.

A non-response that doesn't address either my quotes or my question.
See above.

This is exactly why I suggested you pay attention.
See above.

But I guess you only pay attention to people whose views you already agree with, if you can characterize blindly thanking a person's post as paying attention.
Implying I haven't read left com literari and that my theory comes from Subvert and reb.

This is why it is so important to you to mention that I am a Trotskyist as a pretext for not grappling with the substance of my post at all.
I was attacking the trotskyist theory you were advocating.

I'm a Trotskyist, so that must mean that everything I say about everything is just full of shit! Brilliant deduction!
I have clearly agreed with you in other threads, so you know this isn't true.
You were clearly advocating a trotsyist position, so attacking your trotskyism was of relevance.


Shutting yourself off from people you disagree with and refusing to engage with their ideas, even critically, is a great way not to learn new things. Who taught you this? Rush Limbaugh's dittoheads?
Implying I haven't spent 4 months trying to understand trotsky's bullshit.


You are aware you are in the learning section of the forum, right? Talk about irony.
I said your tendency was shit. And I stand by that statement.
Apparently that means I hate learning.

BRILLIANT DEDUCTION!

If you genuinely stick by this asinine post, perhaps you should stay in learning.

[Five Year Plan]

Just saw this. Was on my phone at the time.

See above.

See above.

Implying I haven't read left com literari and that my theory comes from Subvert and reb.

I was attacking the trotskyist theory you were advocating.

I have clearly agreed with you in other threads, so you know this isn't true.
You were clearly advocating a trotsyist position, so attacking your trotskyism was of relevance.


Implying I haven't spent 4 months trying to understand trotsky's bullshit.


I said your tendency was shit. And I stand by that statement.
Apparently that means I hate learning.

BRILLIANT DEDUCTION!

If you genuinely stick by this asinine post, perhaps you should stay in learning.

I am embarrassed to have read this. You still don't seem to think there's anything wrong with whining that somebody's position is "Trotskyist" instead of explaining through argument why that "Trotskyist" position is wrong, or in what respects it is wrong. You should reconsider why you are posting on the learning subforum, because it appears you are just interested in issuing jeremiads here.

[Remus Bleys]

I am embarrassed to have read this. You should reconsider why you are posting on the learning subforum.
Go and get over yourself.
If you are going to make a baseless assertion like you did, don't get upset when I become irate with you.

[Five Year Plan]

Go and get over yourself.
If you are going to make a baseless assertion like you did, don't get upset when I become irate with you.

My feelings aren't hurt. I am more concerned about keeping the level of discussion in this subforum, specifically this thread, above the level of gutter insults and attacking entire tendencies without backing those attacks up with substance. If you have nothing to say about my contributions to this thread besides, "Shut up, Trotskyist," be quiet and leave the posting to other people who are interested in engaging in substantive discussion. This is a learning subforum on what is basically the only forum for revolutionary leftists on the Internet. It is potentially too valuable of a resource to be screwed up by pointless mudslinging.

[Remus Bleys]

My feelings aren't hurt. I am more concerned about keeping the level of discussion in this subforum, specifically this thread, above the level of gutter insults and attacking entire tendencies without backing those attacks up with substance.
Oh, really. You are of course completely innocent.

Shutting yourself off from people you disagree with and refusing to engage with their ideas, even critically, is a great way not to learn new things. Who taught you this? Rush Limbaugh's dittoheads?Calling me "Rush Limbaugh's dittohead" totally isn't mudslinging.
And how could I have ever misinterpreted this as a claim that I am close minded!



If you have nothing to say about my contributions to this thread besides, "Shut up, Trotskyist," be quiet and leave the posting to other people who are interested in engaging in substantive discussion. This is a learning subforum on what is basically the only forum for revolutionary leftists on the Internet. It is potentially too valuable of a resource to be screwed up by pointless mudslinging. You called me out by name specifically. I wasn't telling you to be quiet because you were a trotskyist, i was telling you to be quiet for naming me spefically and acting like I didn't know what I was talking about, or that I blindly follow Subvert or reb without any critical thinking of my own (which is a weird accusation, because I'm not a council communist). If you want to call me out by name, go ahead. But then you loose the right to be acting like a "victim" or whatever.
I'm done derailing this thread, so lose the self righteousness.

[Five Year Plan]

Oh, really. You are of course completely innocent.
Calling me "Rush Limbaugh's dittohead" totally isn't mudslinging.
And how could I have ever misinterpreted this as a claim that I am close minded!


You called me out by name specifically. I wasn't telling you to be quiet because you were a trotskyist, i was telling you to be quiet for naming me spefically and acting like I didn't know what I was talking about, or that I blindly follow Subvert or reb without any critical thinking of my own (which is a weird accusation, because I'm not a council communist). If you want to call me out by name, go ahead. But then you loose the right to be acting like a "victim" or whatever.
I'm done derailing this thread, so lose the self righteousness.

I called you out specifically by name because the original post to which I was responding just complained that I was a Trotskyist and didn't raise any specific points of criticism beyond that. You still haven't raised any substantive issues beyond that, and instead chosen to express moral indignation at how I noted that your tendency-baiting evinces the mentality of a closed-minded right-winger. Please feel free continuing to derail the thread with you personal vendetta please, though. I am sure many lurkers and registered users are learning a lot from your antics. And that is the point of the subforum after all.

[Remus Bleys]

I called you out specifically by name because the original post to which I was responding just complained that I was a Trotskyist and didn't raise any specific points of criticism beyond that. You still haven't raised any substantive issues beyond that
That's being covered. At the time it wasn't, it got talked about before i got to a computer.

and instead chosen to express moral indignation at how I noted that your tendency-baiting evinces the mentality of a closed-minded right-winger. Rewriting history on the internet where everyone can clearly fucking read it. Good job. It's clearly you that called me specifically.
One post 17 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2681656&postcount=17) you say: " Remus, since you seem to be in love with the posts of these two users, you might want to pay attention, too. You might learn something. "
It wasn't until post 18 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2681666&postcount=18) I said anything about trotsky. Whatsoever. Or anything about you. It was you that initiated this bullshit. So, get over yourself.
What tendency baiting was I doing?

Calling me right-wing. is yet again, showing how you don't "mudsling."

...

I realize now it was you baiting me and I have fallen for it.

Please feel free continuing to derail the thread with you personal vendetta please, though. I am sure many lurkers and registered users are learning a lot from your antics. And that is the point of the subforum after all. I thought I was done, but this post you just made was so... embarrassing.
I mean, you understand the irony right?

[Five Year Plan]

That's being covered. At the time it wasn't, it got talked about before i got to a computer.

Rewriting history on the internet where everyone can clearly fucking read it. Good job. It's clearly you that called me specifically.
One post 17 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2681656&postcount=17) you say: " Remus, since you seem to be in love with the posts of these two users, you might want to pay attention, too. You might learn something. "
It wasn't until post 18 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2681666&postcount=18) I said anything about trotsky. Whatsoever.
What tendency baiting was I doing?

Calling me right-wing. is yet again, showing how you don't "mudsling."

...

I realize now it was you baiting me and I have fallen for it.
I thought I was done, but this post you just made was so... embarrassing.
I mean, you understand the irony right?

This is the last time I'll be responding to your posts in this forum until I see some actual substance to match your moral indignation. In the meantime, I'll just note that I didn't call you a right-winger. I asked whether you learned your tendency-baiting from right-wingers. If you are going to be morally outraged about something I said, at least get that something right. Thanks. As for drawing your attention to an issue that you seem to have an interest in, and noting you might learn something from the exchange? Well, I stand by the sentiment. And it's not mudslinging or "baiting." Perhaps sharply worded in a way that wasn't the most suited to building a positive environment. But you'll just have to excuse me for my occasional excesses. It's the same consideration I would show you or any other poster, as long as they pair their excesses with some kernel of substance. The difference between you and me in this thread is that you have not done so. I think you have a lot to contribute, even if we don't agree on every issue. Please contribute, and stop derailing the thread. Thanks again.

[Remus Bleys]

This is the last time I'll be responding to your posts in this forum until I see some actual substance to match your moral indignation. In the meantime, I'll just note that I didn't call you a right-winger. I asked whether you learned your tendency-baiting from right-wingers.Calling you out for having bad theory and acting like I don't already know about it is not tendency baiting.

If you are going to be morally outraged about something I said, at least get that something right. Thanks.
Why do you keep saying I am morally outraged?

As for drawing your attention to an issue that you seem to have an interest in, and noting you might learn something from the exchange? Well, I stand by the sentiment. And it's not mudslinging or "baiting." Perhaps sharply worded in a way that wasn't the most suited to building a positive environment. But you'll just have to excuse me for my occasional excesses.
Then quit being a dick when I don't "restrain" myself.
How the fuck am I to interpret that from "Remus, since you seem to be in love with the posts of these two users, you might want to pay attention, too. You might learn something." Such condensation acting like you are so much more well read than I am when you don't even fucking know who I am.


It's the same consideration I would show you or any other poster, as long as they pair their excesses with some kernel of substance. The difference between you and me in this thread is that you have not done so. Show me one kernel of substance in our conversation. Show me one time you have shown me to be incorrect in this thread.

I think you have a lot to contribute, even if we don't agree on every issue. Please contribute, and stop derailing the thread. Thanks again.
Its really funny, cuz your first post on the thread helped change the subject from what socialist economy looks like into what the "transistional" economy will look like.

[ckaihatsu]

http://s6.postimage.org/jy0ua35yl/7_Syndicalism_Socialism_Communism_Transiti.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/jy0ua35yl/)

[Laughingasylum]

Thanks for the replies! I've read most of the them and will read the rest later. I've been very busy and unable to find time to read everything.