Communists; Transitory Phase, or Immediate Transition? [Archive]

Tim Cornelis

4th December 2013, 11:12

An immediate transition does not mean an instantaneous transition. This means that we -- generally, the non-Leninist anti-Stalinist revolutionary left -- believe that the construction of communist society begins immediately with the social revolution and that, conversely, the social revolution ends only when its construction is complete. The abolition of money and the state will not happen overnight, but we will immediately begin the construction of the structures and nuclei of such a society. The social transformation itself may take 10, 20, or who knows how many years, but after this we will have a stateless (depending on international variable), classless, moneyless society based on freely associated labour and common property.
I don't believe there to be such a thing as a "post-scarcity" society. Moreover, I don't regard the distribution mechanism as the defining factor of a mode of production. Whether we use labour credits or free-access (both will likely exist to varying extends), it's both the socialist mode of production and both a communist society.

reb

4th December 2013, 11:30

Under the marxian understanding of things, there is no transitory mode of production where one is slowly turning into, or being replaced, by another. Capitalism going to communism with this made up category of "socialism" in the middle. That's a stalinist invention which was built upon trotskyist ideas. To get communism we have to deconstruct capitalism as in, the series of social-relations, not construct "socialism". Constructing "socialism" doesn't make any logical sense if you are describing "socialism" as being not capitalism because you can only get communism from capitalism.

To argue for this transitory moving from one to the other modes of production is to argue for a vanguard party leading an ignorant mass of proletarians, even if that is just in name only. It goes against the whole idea of the proletariat emancipating itself as a class, it ignores what makes the proletariat the revolutionary class in society and it over looks the objective movements within capital that leads to communist society. It is an idealist and utopian argument when you ignore these things.

Jimmie Higgins

4th December 2013, 18:02

I don't know if it's really a matter of choice. To me it's sort of like saying do you want to have written a fantastic novel that's beloved by millions, or do you want to try from scratch to write one but maybe fail at it or have it rejected and no one sees it. Communism is a development of social relations and so we can have immediate political power for the (at the point of revolution) revolutionary working class, but that would not immediately create communist social relations any more than the rulers of Japan in the 1800s could "declare" immediate capitalism... they knew they wanted that, but they had to wield their political power to create the conditions for those capitalist relations to take root.

So I think we need the immediate self-emancipation of the working class as the first necissary part of clearing the way for new communist social relations to develop. I think this could happen very rapidly due to the amount of wealth and the amount of existing expertise and sophistication of workers today.

RedMaterialist

4th December 2013, 21:07

Under the marxian understanding of things, there is no transitory mode of production where one is slowly turning into, or being replaced, by another.

"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 Gotha Programme)

Marx saw a phasing in, an emerging, a prolonged birth, of communism from capitalism. In other words, a transition. And a transition which would still retain characteristics of the old capitalist system, such as unequal pay for unequal work and unequal wealth and poverty among workers.

It is true that the transition theory was developed under Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin. But only because they saw it happening right before their eyes. It was impossible to suddenly go from Russian capitalism/feudalism into communism overnight.

Comrade Chernov

4th December 2013, 21:22

Well, it really boils down to if you use lube during sex or not.

Ceallach_the_Witch

4th December 2013, 21:23

"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 Gotha Programme)

Marx saw a phasing in, an emerging, a prolonged birth, of communism from capitalism. In other words, a transition. And a transition which would still retain characteristics of the old capitalist system, such as unequal pay for unequal work and unequal wealth and poverty among workers.

It is true that the transition theory was developed under Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin. But only because they saw it happening right before their eyes. It was impossible to suddenly go from Russian capitalism/feudalism into communism overnight.

But we live in different times to Marx writing in 1875 or Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky writing in early 20th century Russia. We certainly don't have to worry about transitioning from feudalism through capitalism these days, and by and large the system across the world is developed, globally connected capitalism, administered by powerful, centralised states and huge corporations. With these tools of production, communication and transportation potentially at our fingertips, I don't see why changing over to a socialist mode of production should require a protracted state-capitalistic "transitional period."

I seriously doubt anybody who wants "immediate transition" thinks that the world will effortlessly change gear overnight - not even die-hard proponents like, idk, the SPGB - I think the idea is rather that revolutionaries directly set about changing from the capitalist mode to the socialist mode of production with no intermediary steps.

reb

4th December 2013, 21:26

"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 Gotha Programme)

Marx saw a phasing in, an emerging, a prolonged birth, of communism from capitalism. In other words, a transition. And a transition which would still retain characteristics of the old capitalist system, such as unequal pay for unequal work and unequal wealth and poverty among workers.

It is true that the transition theory was developed under Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin. But only because they saw it happening right before their eyes. It was impossible to suddenly go from Russian capitalism/feudalism into communism overnight.

Oh look. It's you. And your totally batshit theories that run contrary to every person in the world. You haven't yet once mentioned class here, just this undefined thing called "workers". You do understand how what you are saying is perfectly compatible with any other social-democratic party? Managed capital is still capitalism, this whole communism thing will be thousands of years off in the future! So you should all work to make capitalism nicer!

Sabot Cat

4th December 2013, 21:34

RedMaterialist

4th December 2013, 21:39

... and by and large the system across the world is developed, globally connected capitalism, administered by powerful, centralised states and huge corporations. With these tools of production, communication and transportation potentially at our fingertips, I don't see why changing over to a socialist mode of production should require a protracted state-capitalistic "transitional period."

This gigantic, global, centralized system of production and state control seems to me to make a non-intermediary change even more difficult.

I seriously doubt anybody who wants "immediate transition" thinks that the world will effortlessly change gear overnight - not even die-hard proponents like, idk, the SPGB - I think the idea is rather that revolutionaries directly set about changing from the capitalist mode to the socialist mode of production with no intermediary steps.

Well, it appears to me that that is exactly what people like "Reb" are suggesting.

RedMaterialist

4th December 2013, 21:42

Oh look. It's you. And your totally batshit theories that run contrary to every person in the world. You haven't yet once mentioned class here, just this undefined thing called "workers".

Ah! The left communist suffering from the juvenile disorder. Still trying to figure out why the Soviet Union collapsed?

Remus Bleys

4th December 2013, 21:45

The only change to socialism occuring would be the dotp, which is like a form of worker managed capitalism, set up in such a way that the workers would just produce for use where and when possible.
The transformation from the lower phase off communism to free access is a different matter. altogether

RedMaterialist

4th December 2013, 21:59

...they should be identified and gradually enacted by the proletariat themselves in direct democratic assembly.

According to Marxist theory the proletariat is not going to function as a democracy, but rather as a dictatorship; it will not be a free, liberal, utopia, but a violent, if necessary, rule by a particular class against another class.

It is possible, however, that capitalism will transition into a fully developed welfare state which will, more or less, be taken over by the working class. In Germany, for instance, workers make up one-half of the boards of directors of major corporations. How long can it be before, the workers simply buy up the corporations? Even in the U.S., the state owns about 40% of General Motors and now it appears that the government is about to get into the business of managing health care insurance (although with huge profits going to insurance companies.) Who would have thought this was likely ten yrs ago?

Remus Bleys

4th December 2013, 22:11

Wait wait wait redshitted. Are you saying the bourgeois state doesn't need to be smashed?

Sabot Cat

4th December 2013, 23:53

According to Marxist theory the proletariat is not going to function as a democracy, but rather as a dictatorship; it will not be a free, liberal, utopia, but a violent, if necessary, rule by a particular class against another class.

The proletariat won't operate as a democracy among themselves? Because if the revolution was successful, there would no longer be other classes, as everyone's relation to the means of production would be homogeneous. Unless you mean to say that a small portion of the proletariat will rule over all of the others through despotic means, in which case, that would not be Marxist because that small portion would need to have a monopoly on at least some of the means of production to maintain power, thus maintaining a distinct class in opposition to the proletariat.

It is possible, however, that capitalism will transition into a fully developed welfare state which will, more or less, be taken over by the working class. In Germany, for instance, workers make up one-half of the boards of directors of major corporations.

The minimum for co-determination is for it to be as close to half without reaching half as possible for worker representation. The corporate leaders and owners remain unelected and unrepresentative; income inequality is still present (although mitigated) in Germany. I also don't see how any form of bourgeois-ran society will liberate the proletariat. Those in power will often not give up that power unless it would be more disadvantageous to keep it, which is why revolutionary action is a necessity.

How long can it be before, the workers simply buy up the corporations? Even in the U.S., the state owns about 40% of General Motors and now it appears that the government is about to get into the business of managing health care insurance (although with huge profits going to insurance companies.) Who would have thought this was likely ten yrs ago?

"The state" is embodied in hundreds of bourgeois and reactionary Congress people as well as their similarly privileged judicial and executive cohorts. Even if they owned it all, State Capitalism is still capitalism.

RedMaterialist

5th December 2013, 07:03

The proletariat won't operate as a democracy among themselves?

How is it possible for any dictatorship to operate as a democracy? It is by definition undemocratic. It is also possible for a class to function as a dictatorship by bureaucratic delegation of authority both from above and below, as in the case of a modern corporation. I think what counts is that the class sees itself as a dictatorial authority in relation to the subjected class, which I think happened in the Soviet Union especially in the 20s and 30s. Most of the purges and trials were conducted by former factory workers against suspected bourgeois who were thought to be hiding their real identities. There was a huge black market in the early SU for fake identity papers.

The minimum for co-determination is for it to be as close to half without reaching half as possible for worker representation. The corporate leaders and owners remain unelected and unrepresentative; income inequality is still present (although mitigated) in Germany. I also don't see how any form of bourgeois-ran society will liberate the proletariat. Those in power will often not give up that power unless it would be more disadvantageous to keep it, which is why revolutionary action is a necessity.

The new corporate leaders and owners will also be unelected and unrepresentative, except for themselves. I agree that a bourgeois run society will not liberate the working class. However, whether a violent revolution is a necessity is still, in my opinion, an unanswered question. Suppose there is another economic crash (which I think will happen in the next 3-4 yrs.), will the German or Swedish working class allow the Euro banking system to dismantle their welfare states?

"The state" is embodied in hundreds of bourgeois and reactionary Congress people as well as their similarly privileged judicial and executive cohorts. Even if they owned it all, State Capitalism is still capitalism.

You mean if the working class owned all the means of production? I thought that was the definition of socialism. The congress people, judiciary and executives would be replaced by functionaries of the working class, as happened in the Soviet Union. Now, you may believe the SU was capitalist and that Lenin and Stalin were part of the world bourgeoisie, but that is another debate.

RedMaterialist

5th December 2013, 07:07

Wait wait wait redshitted. Are you saying the bourgeois state doesn't need to be smashed?

You juvenile leftists are always eager to start the bloodletting. I hereby award you the Star of Lenin in advance. I'm sure you have earned it in your own mind.

Sabot Cat

5th December 2013, 07:47

How is it possible for any dictatorship to operate as a democracy? It is by definition undemocratic. It is also possible for a class to function as a dictatorship by bureaucratic delegation of authority both from above and below, as in the case of a modern corporation.

I think what counts is that the class sees itself as a dictatorial authority in relation to the subjected class, which I think happened in the Soviet Union especially in the 20s and 30s. Most of the purges and trials were conducted by former factory workers against suspected bourgeois who were thought to be hiding their real identities. There was a huge black market in the early SU for fake identity papers.

The class as a whole can only collectively act a such in relation to a legal structure through democracy. It's not enough to have a few of the proletariat control the means of production because then they be the new exploiters. This is what you see in the Soviet Union, wherein the proletariat wasn't in control, and a small clique of people who had a monopoly on force in the Soviet Union (led by one Joseph Stalin) were the ones who had the real power. They weren't a dictatorship of the proletariat because of that, and the purges also claimed members of the Communist Party and the Red Army, peasants, artists and intellectuals who had almost nothing to do with bourgeois.

The new corporate leaders and owners will also be unelected and unrepresentative, except for themselves.

Are you talking about after a revolution? In which case, wouldn't they just be capitalists if they are neither elected by the proletariat or represent them?

I agree that a bourgeois run society will not liberate the working class. However, whether a violent revolution is a necessity is still, in my opinion, an unanswered question. Suppose there is another economic crash (which I think will happen in the next 3-4 yrs.), will the German or Swedish working class allow the Euro banking system to dismantle their welfare states?

In that scenario, the German and Swedish working class could have direct action protests and engage in a general strike to put nonviolent pressure on the bourgeois government, in order to maintain their privileges.

You mean if the working class owned all the means of production? I thought that was the definition of socialism. The congress people, judiciary and executives would be replaced by functionaries of the working class, as happened in the Soviet Union.

Unless they are delegates who can be recalled at any time for a referendum among the community they represent, they have far too much power to be considered a legitimate representative of the proletariat, instead of a new bourgeois who maintains a state capitalist system.

Now, you may believe the SU was capitalist and that Lenin and Stalin were part of the world bourgeoisie, but that is another debate.

It is directly relevant to this debate that the Soviet Union was state capitalist because their rhetoric has confused the entire philosophy of Marxism. The Bolsheviks, and later Stalin, as well as all of the cynical cronies of state capitalist regimes, have done grave and irreversible damage to this entire movement by corroding its foundations for personal gain.

RedMaterialist

5th December 2013, 17:40

The class as a whole can only collectively act a such in relation to a legal structure through democracy..

If a class can act collectively as a democracy, then why can't it act collectively as a dictatorship? Once class consciousness develops then the class should be able to function collectively either democratically or through a dictatorship.

Why would Marx have used the phrase "dictatorship" of the proletariat? After the capitalist classes have been fully suppressed and and destroyed then obviously society will have no need of the suppressive apparatus of the state, democratic or otherwise.

The Garbage Disposal Unit

5th December 2013, 18:24

Alright, so Redshifted here, seems to conflate class in the bourgeois sociological sense with class in the sense of a relation to production, and the state with socialism:

In Germany, for instance, workers make up one-half of the boards of directors of major corporations. How long can it be before, the workers simply buy up the corporations? Even in the U.S., the state owns about 40% of General Motors and now it appears that the government is about to get into the business of managing health care insurance (although with huge profits going to insurance companies.) Who would have thought this was likely ten yrs ago?

Of course, the "workers" who sit on boards of directors aren't proletarian at all, but represent an irredeemably bourgeoisified strata "a bourgeois proletariat" in Lenin's words. Similarly, if workers were to "buy up the corporations" they would simply be bourgeois, full stop, as long as capital continues to be the organizational basis of social relations. This leads us nicely into the topic of the state. If the state acts simply as a particularly well armed corporate body, it needs to be understood as such, rather than by an act of ideological jujitsu wherein its material activity (doin' capitalism) is held to be secondary to its formal legal character and ideological pronouncements.

This, in turn, leads us nicely to the question of a "transitional stage". I think the idea itself seems to point to a mechanical, and idealist notion of history, as a unitary and linear progression. I would submit that capitalism is always "in transition". Communism rises above the waves only to be sucked under again; there will be no triumphant and apocalyptic final battle wherein the righteous proletarians finally and definitively overcome capital all at once and everywhere. In this context, what does the replacement of capitalism by communism look like? Does the state-capitalism of 20th century "actually existing socialism" have any relevance as a model for a contemporary communist project? If so, where? In the first world, are proletarian parties at all likely to achieve military territorial sovereignty, and use it as a means of effecting economic transformation? If the answer is "no", then what might a transition to communism look like?

G4b3n

5th December 2013, 18:30

I think many times people have a severe misunderstanding of anarchism when it comes to the topic of transition. We do not argue that no transition is needed at all, we argue that the state is not a necessary tool in that transition and it can be carried out by the institutions of the worker's themselves.

Remus Bleys

5th December 2013, 20:22

These institions of workers is a state, though.

Blake's Baby

5th December 2013, 20:31

None of the above, because 'socialism' is not a transitional society or economy between capitalist society and communist society.

What Marx talks about - and you can find the link in my signature - is the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, which is the political form which corresponds to the transformation of capitalist society into communist society.

RedMaterialist

5th December 2013, 22:28

Of course, the "workers" who sit on boards of directors aren't proletarian at all, but represent an irredeemably bourgeoisified strata "a bourgeois proletariat" in Lenin's words. Similarly, if workers were to "buy up the corporations" they would simply be bourgeois, full stop, as long as capital continues to be the organizational basis of social relations.

A "bourgeois proletariat" could be interpreted as a transition from bourgeois to proletariat. It was the serf who transitioned into the feudal burgher class, so there would have been "serf-bourgeois," in a sense. The difference with the working class is that workers will be suppressing the capitalist class, not in order to create a new class to exploit, but to create a classless society.

If workers buy up the corporations won't they be buying up and then owning the means of production? Marx certainly foresaw, and I think most socialists and communists believe, that a violent revolution (as in Russia, China, Vietnam, etc.) will be necessary to take control of the means of production; but, if it's possible to do it without violence, then why subject millions of people to that kind of blood and death?

Capital is dead labor which controls living labor through the hands of the capitalist. If workers own corporations, such as General Motors, BMW, JP Morgan, AirFrance, etc., they will still be doing work and will still be creating surplus value. They will still receive different pay for different work. But with this difference, the workers will own the surplus value, as predicted by Marx in the Gotha Programme. Then exchange as the social basis will disappear, exchange value will disappear and only use-value will be produced. But this cannot possibly happen immediately after the take over of the means of production by the working class. Thus a transition period is needed.

This leads us nicely into the topic of the state. If the state acts simply as a particularly well armed corporate body,

which acts to suppress a particular class. The workers' state will function in exactly the same way.

In this context, what does the replacement of capitalism by communism look like? Does the state-capitalism of 20th century "actually existing socialism" have any relevance as a model for a contemporary communist project? If so, where? In the first world, are proletarian parties at all likely to achieve military territorial sovereignty, and use it as a means of effecting economic transformation? If the answer is "no", then what might a transition to communism look like?

History so far has, I think, shown three different types of transition to communism: 1) violent workers' revolution followed by a bureaucratic worker dictatorship and the slow suppression of the capitalist classes, i.e. the Soviet Union.

2) violent national wars of liberation by the peasant class (China, Vietnam, Cuba,) followed by the expulsion of the imperialist, colonial class, (the U.S. military helicopter lifting off from the Saigon embassy is a perfect symbol of this expulsion; ) however, the peasant class was not socially developed to the point where it could transition from a peasant economy to fully developed socialism, so those countries mostly have reverted to state-capitalism.

3.) development of the social welfare state as in the U.S. and Europe.

None of these developments has resulted in the successful establishment of communism, primarily, in my opinion, because socialism in one state is not possible for any length of time; it has to be done internationally. States like Vietnam and China are good examples: the U.S. is now trying to ratchet up nationalist tensions between them. They have always been enemies, but why can't they recognize that their common enemy is world capitalism and thus form a socialist bloc against the U.S.?

Marx once said that the proletariat of each country will first settle accounts with its own bourgeoisie. He didn't say what would happen if they settled the accounts at different times over two centuries.

As far as the welfare states, several of them have already instituted most of the reforms mentioned in the Communist Manifesto. In 1848 if you had told Marx that Sweden in 2000 would have free education, full voting rights, health care, pension coverage, worker participation/ownership of corporate enterprises, etc. etc, he would have thought the socialist revolution had been achieved. That wouldnt be the whole story, but if the Nordic countries can do this without violence (Sweden stayed out of WWII) then why can't any state?

RedMaterialist

5th December 2013, 22:30

Remus Bleys

5th December 2013, 23:09

capitalism that leads to its own destruction.

reb

6th December 2013, 00:01

A socialist transition would entail people in power (who would not be the whole of the working class) voluntarily giving that up under terms that they determine. Which, if the state capitalism that infected most nations with pretensions of communist ideology can serve as any indication, is fairly unlikely. I say that if there are changes in societal structures that are better to implement in a gradual fashion, they should be identified and gradually enacted by the proletariat themselves in direct democratic assembly.

The problem is, there's two things happening here. There's the objective and automatic change from capitalism to communism as modes of production, over which corresponds the subjective change. People conflate these two together as the same thing, or sometimes put the subjective change first. The subjective is probably going to be gradual but I don't think that it's as gradual as some people here think.

And redshift, you're totally insane. You're even less informed about marxism than stalinists.

RedMaterialist

6th December 2013, 00:22

The problem is, there's two things happening here. There's the objective and automatic change from capitalism to communism as modes of production, over which corresponds the subjective change. People conflate these two together as the same thing, or sometimes put the subjective change first. The subjective is probably going to be gradual but I don't think that it's as gradual as some people here think.

And redshift, you're totally insane. You're even less informed about marxism than stalinists.

sounds like you are coming around to the transitional argument. what is "objective" and "subjective' change from capitalism to communism?

What is the economic system under the dictatorship of the working class?

consuming negativity

6th December 2013, 01:33

According to Marxist theory the proletariat is not going to function as a democracy, but rather as a dictatorship; it will not be a free, liberal, utopia, but a violent, if necessary, rule by a particular class against another class.

You're thinking of dictatorship in the "tin-pot US-backed tyrant" sense and not dictatorship coming from the word "dictate". You could, for example, say that under capitalism, we live in a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, since that class is the class that runs the place and makes the laws that the rest of us follow. Therefore, a dictatorship of the proletariat would mean that proletarians were making the laws - and if everybody is a proletarian, that means early communism of some sort. Of course there are variations from that basic understanding, but that is the general idea. IIRC, it is from that collectivist situation that, according to Marx, true/second stage communism develops and self-determination grows.

Brotto Rühle

6th December 2013, 01:42

What is the economic system under the dictatorship of the working class?

Capitalist. The working class merely seizes political power, and becomes its own exploiter in the arena of capitalism.

RedMaterialist

6th December 2013, 01:51

Capitalist. The working class merely seizes political power, and becomes its own exploiter in the arena of capitalism.

So, you think that in the Soviet Union the working class had seized political power and operated a capitalist economy?

Sabot Cat

6th December 2013, 01:59

So, you think that in the Soviet Union the working class had seized political power and operated a capitalist economy?

I can't speak for who you're asking, but I find this to be the case; it is for this reason that the Soviet Union was state capitalist.

Brotto Rühle

6th December 2013, 03:06

So, you think that in the Soviet Union the working class had seized political power and operated a capitalist economy?

I don't believe the working class ever held political power in the USSR. Though, to answer your question it would operate under a capitalist mode of production if there was a dotp. This would be the case in any dotp.

I can't speak for who you're asking, but I find this to be the case; it is for this reason that the Soviet Union was state capitalist.

This would be incorrect in the case of the USSR, but I'll challenge you to tell me how exactly the working class held political power there.

Remus Bleys

6th December 2013, 03:17

I can't speak for who you're asking, but I find this to be the case; it is for this reason that the Soviet Union was state capitalist.
This is conflating the state capitalist theory with the dictatorship of the proletariat then.

Sabot Cat

6th December 2013, 03:48

I appreciate you all drawing attention to what I overlooked, because I didn't qualify what I was responding to properly. I had fundamentally misread what was written, as it didn't make sense to me to say that the working class as a whole can facilitate a capitalist system while still wielding true political power, and thus I interpreted it to imply something different. What I would say in response to what was actually written is that some of those who were or are workers, not the whole of the working class, ascended to new positions of political power without the proletariat assuming control of the means of production, thus making the Soviet Union what I would call 'state capitalist'.

Remus Bleys

6th December 2013, 03:55

Sabot Cat

6th December 2013, 03:58

Why can't the working class as a whole operate capitalism? (Of course, when the entire working class is the onhe operating it, capitalism can then be abolished - but I assume you were going by working class of nations.)

I understand capitalism to mean that the bourgeois own the means of production, and exploit the labor of the proletariat in order to accrue profits. If the proletariat as a whole owned the means of production, it would cease to be capitalism by definition. I use the term "working class" to mean the same thing as the proletariat, much like others affiliated with the Industrial Workers of the World.

Remus Bleys

6th December 2013, 04:02

I understand capitalism to mean that the bourgeois own the means of production, and exploit the labor of the proletariat in order to accrue profits. If the proletariat as a whole owned the means of production, it would cease to be capitalism by definition.

Capitalism is the law of value.
Do you think worker co ops are soscialist?

Sabot Cat

6th December 2013, 04:08

Capitalism is the law of value.
Do you think worker co ops are soscialist?

I believe that organizations where the means of production are controlled by the whole of the workers there (in a fashion that does not create operative hierarchies) can be described as socialist, if such a term can be applied to economic entities as opposed to entire economies.

Remus Bleys

6th December 2013, 04:14

I believe that organizations where the means of production are controlled by the whole of the workers there (in a fashion that does not create operative hierarchies) can be described as socialist, if such a term can be applied to economic entities as opposed to entire economies.

Please keep it short and simple. A "yes" would have sufficed.it hurts my brain when people take a long time to say something.

How do these "economic entities" differ from a regular store? Aren't they still subject to the world market?

Sabot Cat

6th December 2013, 04:22

Please keep it short and simple. A "yes" would have sufficed.it hurts my brain when people take a long time to say something.

I know people will often pounce upon even the slightest perceived analytic flaw, and so I attempt to lucidly describe all of my points.

How do these "economic entities" differ from a regular store? Aren't they still subject to the world market?

Economic entities are simply parts of a larger economic system; a bourgeois-owned business, a worker cooperative, a bank, a credit union, etc. I was saying that I was hesitant in labeling any of these as "socialist" or "capitalist" because such terms are more accurate when applied to entire economic systems.

Remus Bleys

6th December 2013, 04:29

1. I'm not going to do that to you (and really only you) because I remember that line of thought and id rather not lash out on something I'm projecting on to you.
2. Do you think the theory of socialism in one country is sound? It seems you might, because you've said that capitalism can be abolished in one country. (When in fact socialism necessarily is the abolition of the very concept of ownership and a proletariat)

Sabot Cat

6th December 2013, 04:45

1. I'm not going to do that to you (and really only you) because I remember that line of thought and id rather not lash out on something I'm projecting on to you.

I appreciate that, and I'll try to return the favor. :)

2. Do you think the theory of socialism in one country is sound? It seems you might, because you've said that capitalism can be abolished in one country. (When in fact socialism necessarily is the abolition of the very concept of ownership and a proletariat)

No; the theory of socialism in one country is unsound because of the interdependence of the global economy. If the workers of one nation collectively own the means of production in their own nation, but derive material gains from the exploited labor of the proletariat from other nations, they are a part of the world bourgeois. Even if they did not, socialism in one country is unstable because reactionary nations will intervene, as the United States had in the Cold War with its numerous coup d'etats and military engagements.

A world revolution by all of the workers is the only thing that can change the current system in a sustainable fashion. I'm not saying the global proletariat are likely to seize power all at once, but that should be the goal for truly socialist nations to work towards by aiding the proletariat in the class struggle, no matter where they happen to be.

Remus Bleys

6th December 2013, 04:58

If the workers of one nation collectively own the means of production in their own nation, but derive material gains from the exploited labor of the proletariat from other nations, they are a part of the world bourgeois.
- red rose (I don't feel like quoting, deal with it)

Eh not really. Id argue that that is the pinnacle of expressing themselves a class as they are doing what is in their class interests - installing themselves as the political power so they can abolish themselves as a class.

Sabot Cat

6th December 2013, 05:16

Eh not really. Id argue that that is the pinnacle of expressing themselves a class as they are doing what is in their class interests - installing themselves as the political power so they can abolish themselves as a class.

What I'm saying is this: Imagine if in one wondrous year, all of the proletariat of the United States of America suddenly rose up and seized the means of production, organized in local units like cooperatives or communes or what have you. However, they also are now responsible for the assets of the former U.S. corporations that were held abroad. If they did nothing to change how these multinational companies work internationally, something like the "Nike Cooperative" would be democratic, equitable and socialist at home, but the American proletariat who own the Nike sweatshops would be acting as the bourgeois in their relation to the world means of production.

Brotto Rühle

6th December 2013, 05:36

Capitalism as a mode of production doesn't need a group of people called bourgeoisie controlling the economy to still be the capitalist mode of production. What I mean is that the workers take that role on themselves, whilst maintaining their role as proletariat. The value production inherent in capitalism is inescapable at this point. Think about a coop, no physical bourgeoisie, but the fact that it operates in capitalism means that those workers are exploiting themselves.

I like what Marx says here, in response to Bakunin in reference to the dotp idea:

"...the class rule of the workers over the strata of the old world whom they have been fighting can only exist as long as the economic basis of class existence is not destroyed."

Art Vandelay

6th December 2013, 05:51

Capitalism as a mode of production doesn't need a group of people called bourgeoisie controlling the economy to still be the capitalist mode of production.

That's actually something that has always interested me, the fact that workers self management is essentially a method for the reorganization of capital. I personally think it has some interesting implications with regards to revolutionary theory which upholds centralization/decentralization as principles, as opposed to tactics.

I like what Marx says here, in response to Bakunin in reference to the dotp idea:

"...the class rule of the workers over the strata of the old world whom they have been fighting can only exist as long as the economic basis of class existence is not destroyed."

What do you think the practical implications, in regards to Marxist economic theory, which stem from this?

e: I could easily be wrong, but all I really take from this quote is simply an explanation of the dotp withering away, since the proletariat can only be engaged in class rule, for as long as it has yet to abolish itself as a socio-economic class.

Brotto Rühle

6th December 2013, 16:15

That's actually something that has always interested me, the fact that workers self management is essentially a method for the reorganization of capital. I personally think it has some interesting implications with regards to revolutionary theory which upholds centralization/decentralization as principles, as opposed to tactics. I by no means think that self-management is the be all end all goal. The proudhonist view is wrong, obviously. Though, Marxists should realize that the reorganization of capital is simply the beginning of the end of capital itself.

What do you think the practical implications, in regards to Marxist economic theory, which stem from this?

e: I could easily be wrong, but all I really take from this quote is simply an explanation of the dotp withering away, since the proletariat can only be engaged in class rule, for as long as it has yet to abolish itself as a socio-economic class.

What I take from this quote is Marx affirming the notion that the capitalist mode of production, the economic foundations of current class society, still exists. You're take is right as well, but I think it's a problem when everyone refuses to acknowledge that the dotp isn't a change in the mode of production of society.

Not sure If I answered you, or not.

reb

6th December 2013, 17:45

sounds like you are coming around to the transitional argument. what is "objective" and "subjective' change from capitalism to communism?

What is the economic system under the dictatorship of the working class?

There is a transformation from capitalism to communism, which part of your half working brain can't comprehend this? The dictatorship of the proletariat is not a mode of production. What was the mode of production between capitalism and pre-capitalist Europe?

Comrade #138672

6th December 2013, 18:20

You juvenile leftists are always eager to start the bloodletting. I hereby award you the Star of Lenin in advance. I'm sure you have earned it in your own mind.It is just basic stuff. No revolution (= smashing the state), no socialism.

This is the revolutionary left forum, not the reformist left forum, as far as I know.

Blake's Baby

6th December 2013, 19:13

So, you think that in the Soviet Union the working class had seized political power and operated a capitalist economy?

Who says that the working class held on to power? Not many of us I'd hazard.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

6th December 2013, 22:38

I by no means think that self-management is the be all end all goal. The proudhonist view is wrong, obviously. Though, Marxists should realize that the reorganization of capital is simply the beginning of the end of capital itself.

What I take from this quote is Marx affirming the notion that the capitalist mode of production, the economic foundations of current class society, still exists. You're take is right as well, but I think it's a problem when everyone refuses to acknowledge that the dotp isn't a change in the mode of production of society.

Not sure If I answered you, or not.

I have a curious ontological question here as to how we divide one "means of production" from another. It seems that the transfer from feudal to capitalist modes of production took centuries. It did not happen overnight. In fact, it began well before the bourgeoisie took class power. For centuries, the bourgeois was accumulating wealth and paying a portion of it in taxes to military, feudal landlords who ran the economy. In fact as far as the move from feudalism to capitalism the economic change seems to have actually preceeded the political change. In a sense Marx seems to think that's the case with capitalism and communism - there's already the sense in which liberalism has begun to move us back to a collective mode of production through industrialized labor at least in certain aspects (hence the structure/superstructure divide that some later Marxists like so much).

Can we say that it is so easy to distinguish sharply between the capitalist and communist modes of production? Can we say that one class taking over the means of production doesn't indicate that some change in the means of production is taking place, or in fact has already taken place? Or is it really only a sharp divide, and the working class has not crossed that line when it imposes its rule?

Blake's Baby

8th December 2013, 13:22

Your posts starts very sensibly and then in my opinion goes hopelessly off the rails.

I have a curious ontological question here as to how we divide one "means of production" from another. It seems that the transfer from feudal to capitalist modes of production took centuries. It did not happen overnight. In fact, it began well before the bourgeoisie took class power. For centuries, the bourgeois was accumulating wealth and paying a portion of it in taxes to military, feudal landlords who ran the economy. In fact as far as the move from feudalism to capitalism the economic change seems to have actually preceeded the political change...

I think this is basically true. The bourgeoisie grew up inside feudalism. As the aristocracy, as a ruling class, was based on the exploitation of the peasantry, the bourgeoisie was able to exist and exploit - indeed create - its own lower class, the proleariat, in the areas that were not subject to 'feudalism' per se - primarily the towns, but also to an extent in the countryside too, with the creation of a rural proletariat. The shift from a service economy to a cash economy was a slow thing, which, at different points in history in different places, led to the new bourgeois class assuming political control. Without nascent capitalism, there would be no bourgeoisie to contest political power. The 'bourgeois revolutions' are predicated on the advance of the bourgeoisie's economic power.

In a sense Marx seems to think that's the case with capitalism and communism - there's already the sense in which liberalism has begun to move us back to a collective mode of production through industrialized labor at least in certain aspects (hence the structure/superstructure divide that some later Marxists like so much)...

I think this is nonsense. Capitalism has always been about social or collective production.

...Can we say that it is so easy to distinguish sharply between the capitalist and communist modes of production? Can we say that one class taking over the means of production doesn't indicate that some change in the means of production is taking place, or in fact has already taken place? Or is it really only a sharp divide, and the working class has not crossed that line when it imposes its rule?

Yes to the first point - it is easy to say what is capitalist production and what is communist production; no to the second point, because the working class is a special case that cannot be compared to the bourgeoisie's gradual wresting of economic power from the aristocracy (and I'll explain why below) and yes, it is a sharp divide, the working class cannnot abolish property until it controls property, and it cannot control property until it has 'imposed its rule'.

Why the working class and bourgeoisie are different:

The bourgeoisie undder feudalism was a revolutionary class, but it was also an exploiting class. It was revolutionary, because it was based on a new property form that would replace feudal property, but it was an exploiting class because that new property-form relied on the exploitation of the proletariat. As long as feudalism allowed nascent capitalism space to grow there was no problem for the bourgeoisie; it was only when feudalism became a barrier to further capitalist expansion (eg, through Crown monopolies, massive landed estates, Church lands etc) that the bourgeoisie challenged it for political power.

The case of the proletariat is different. Revolutionary, certainly, because it too holds a new property-form in waiting; but not an exploiting class. The bourgeoisie doesn't have a slave class on whose back it can get rich and build its own economic power in capitalism. It cannot, as the bourgeoisie did, build its own power inside the structures of the previous society - it's too busy being enslaved itself, unlike the bourgeoisie, who were not an exploited class in feudalism. Pannekoek said that all the proletariat has its its consciousness and its organisation, and that is true. There's no 'developing proletarian economic power' that we can use to fight capitalism as the bourgeoisie fought the aristocracy; all we have is our ability to paralyse capitalism, we can't out-compete it.

This is why, for the proletariat, the 'political' revolution must come before the economic re-arrangement of society (though, obviously, there is a certain simultaneity in these events). Without controlling society, the working class cannot re-organise it. But, the 'taking control' necessarily involves seizing the 'economic motors' anyway; so the revolution itself consists of both seizing the factories, and seizing the state. Locally, the economic levers will give the proletariat political power; globally, the political power of the proletariat is what allows the local seizure of the economy to exapand and extend.

Zizz01010101

10th December 2013, 21:57

I voted "not sure" because I feel it's more of a situational decision. If aggressions raise (or you make them raise,) revolt. (immediate) If peaceful transition comes naturally, push it. (transition) Ultimately, I believe it's much more likely to be an immediate change to full communism, but socialist change will transition as well.

Remus Bleys

15th December 2013, 21:36

This is a duplicate thread and should probably be merged with this: http://www.revleft.com/vb/communists-transitory-phase-t185561/index.html?t=185561

The Feral Underclass

15th December 2013, 23:20

What is a socialist transition?

Fourth Internationalist

15th December 2013, 23:22

To the Communists of RevLeft, do you support a transitory, socialist phase to communism, or an immediate transition? Explain why.
I personally am not sure about which one is better. A socialist phase will allow for a build up of resources thanks to it's system of distribution based on contribution, so Communism will have enough to go around, but then an immediate transition to communism will allow people to immediately enjoy communism. The problem that a socialist phase might have is the bourgeoisie taking back their power, and with an immediate transition might not have the technology to sustain a post-scarcity economy.

This doesn't make much sense...

Ocean Seal

15th December 2013, 23:50

Impossible question to answer. Not even really something we should consider too much being that we are far removed from the revolution.

Red Shaker

16th December 2013, 01:29

In a post revolutionary situation it is unlikely everyone is going to be won to abolishing the wage system immediately. But if prior to the seizure of power you have won the party and millions of workers to that idea, the transition to communism can be started immediately. Eliminating the wage system is a key element of building communism. The failure to do this in the Soviet Union and China opened the door for the restoration of capitalism. This is one important lesson we have learned from these past revolutions.

The Feral Underclass

16th December 2013, 10:44

What is a socialist transition?

I don't understand how anyone can answer this question without understanding what they mean by "socialist transition"?

The Feral Underclass

16th December 2013, 10:47

What is a socialist transition?

I don't understand how anyone can answer this question without understanding what they mean by "socialist transition"? It seems to me that this whole thread is a non-starter. How could anyone legitimately assert we can create socialism without some kind of transitional period? It betrays a deep lack of understanding of the nature of communism and social change.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

16th December 2013, 18:04

I don't understand how anyone can answer this question without understanding what they mean by "socialist transition"? It seems to me that this whole thread is a non-starter. How could anyone legitimately assert we can create socialism without some kind of transitional period? It betrays a deep lack of understanding of the nature of communism and social change.

It's clearly used by people who take 'socialism' to mean something different to what we understand it to be, i.e. one-party state owned economy with huge welfare etc.

There are elements of social change that don't need to be transitory, for example the abolition of profit and changing business structures of ownership.

There are some elements of social change that are transitory only insofar as they require careful, sometimes technical planning in order to be executed competently, for example currency is not just something we can abolish overnight without significant repercussions - it clearly needs to be thought through if production and distribution aren't to collapse.

Then there are elements of social change that will take an extended period - most likely these are the consequences of political actions: the abolition of value in its totality, the abolition of all vestiges of oppressive power structures in a meaningful and long-lasting way and so on.

Key is to understand that revolution is a process, not the flag-waving, party-induced second coming of Marx or Lenin.

AmilcarCabral

16th December 2013, 18:58

Dear brother Themself: Hi how are you? I would love to see the destruction of capitalist governments in all countries of the world to be replaced in a few months, or years by anarchist-communism political economic system. But I am also a realist and an observer of the behaviour patterns of humans, and how most humans are habit creatures and are addicted to their old way of living, to their traditions and habits.

And from my own humble personal opinion, another thing I would like to say is that I think that the workers-dictatorship socialism temporary-transitional preparatorial phase is necessary in order to use the dictatorial military power of the state to expropiate businesses from the private sector, and at the same time to educate the masses, teach the masses philosophy, science and get the masses out of their ignorance. And those military dictatorial powers are necessary in order to prevent the capitalist sectors of society from destroying and overthrowing the workers-dictatorships and taking back the governmnet power

To the Communists of RevLeft, do you support a transitory, socialist phase to communism, or an immediate transition? Explain why.
I personally am not sure about which one is better. A socialist phase will allow for a build up of resources thanks to it's system of distribution based on contribution, so Communism will have enough to go around, but then an immediate transition to communism will allow people to immediately enjoy communism. The problem that a socialist phase might have is the bourgeoisie taking back their power, and with an immediate transition might not have the technology to sustain a post-scarcity economy.