Theory-off vs Q

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I can't believe I was runner up for most theoretically advanced to a friggin' Neo-Kautskyite. I think we need to settle this for real some how.

My proposal - a panel of judges devises a series of theoretical questions. Q and I each respond to the questions, and then each have one response each to each others responses. The judges rate each of the responses, and each of the responses-to-the-responses according to some agreed upon scoring system. We add up the totals, and the loser has to pay the others' party-dues for a year.

[Ele'ill]

I can't believe I was runner up for most theoretically advanced

it was a bit shocking

[Art Vandelay]

I'd support this.

[reb]

A social democrat was runner up to a social democrat? What a world we live in!

[Brotto Rühle]

He who glorifies theory and genius but fails to recognize the limits of a theoretical work, fails likewise to recognize the indispensability of the theoretician. Just some words for thought.

[Ele'ill]

i predict this thread getting nastier and nastier (simply because it is in chit chat and literally for no other reason)

[The Feral Underclass]

You need to start using the Learning forum and asking questions. That is what it's there for after all.

[The Feral Underclass]

it was a bit shocking

Dude, the CWI came in as best organisation...

[Queen Mab]

Dude, the CWI came in as best organisation...

And Revleft won best website. I mean come on...

[Panda Tse Tung]

I volunteer for jury duty!

[Five Year Plan]

I submit to you exhibit A: http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialismi-t183513/index.html?p=2669304#post2669304

Anybody, no matter how nice and helpful in other contexts, responsible for making that monstrosity of a graph has no business being within smelling distance of any theoretical recognition. It represents basic confusion between communism in its lower phase, and the transition from capitalism to communism. It also repeats the Stalinist revision that socialism is a class society.

[ed miliband]

A social democrat was runner up to a social democrat? What a world we live in!

:lol:

[ed miliband]

ravachol was robbed though.

[Bostana]

ARe people really getting upset over the Chit-Chat awards?

[Remus Bleys]

ARe people really getting upset over the Chit-Chat awards?oh no but the golden che
such serious

[Die Neue Zeit]

I can't believe I was runner up for most theoretically advanced to a friggin' Neo-Kautskyite. I think we need to settle this for real some how.

My proposal - a panel of judges devises a series of theoretical questions. Q and I each respond to the questions, and then each have one response each to each others responses. The judges rate each of the responses, and each of the responses-to-the-responses according to some agreed upon scoring system. We add up the totals, and the loser has to pay the others' party-dues for a year.

I was not even nominated this year. That's the price I pay for not posting a lot in so many months. :crying:

[Jimmie Higgins]

Does this mean I have to have a helpfull-off with quail? Here, let me get that for you... Does anyone need me to take care of their pets while they are on vacation?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Does this mean I have to have a helpfull-off with quail? Here, let me get that for you... Does anyone need me to take care of their pets while they are on vacation?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Does this mean I have to have a helpfull-off with quail? Here, let me get that for you... Does anyone need me to take care of their pets while they are on vacation?

YES!

But it would be more necessary if Quail were a neo-Kautskyite or a Spartacist.

[Quail]

Does this mean I have to have a helpfull-off with quail? Here, let me get that for you... Does anyone need me to take care of their pets while they are on vacation?


Does this mean I have to have a helpfull-off with quail? Here, let me get that for you... Does anyone need me to take care of their pets while they are on vacation?

Want me to delete that double post for you? :lol:

[Jimmie Higgins]

Want me to delete that double post for you? :lol:You win. And you made me choke on my coffee from laughing.

[Q]

I submit to you exhibit A: http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialismi-t183513/index.html?p=2669304#post2669304

Anybody, no matter how nice and helpful in other contexts, responsible for making that monstrosity of a graph has no business being within smelling distance of any theoretical recognition.
I am completely guilty of a lack of artistic skill.


It represents basic confusion between communism in its lower phase, and the transition from capitalism to communism. It also repeats the Stalinist revision that socialism is a class society.Yes, I've seen these platitudes time and again (the other popular variant being "but that's not what Marx said!"). What I have yet to see is an actual argumentation, that stands on its own. I could well be wrong of course, but no one yet has made a convincing case about it.

So, plot twist: Did I win because of my amazing theoretical insights or because of the amazing lack of insight among the rest of Revleft?

If the latter is the case, there is a saying in Dutch (not sure it exists in English): "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king", meaning that where none can do something, the one who has even a little knowledge has the power.

[Five Year Plan]

I am completely guilty of a lack of artistic skill.

Yes, I've seen these platitudes time and again (the other popular variant being "but that's not what Marx said!"). What I have yet to see is an actual argumentation, that stands on its own. I could well be wrong of course, but no one yet has made a convincing case about it.

This can be resolved pretty easily. If you want us to believe that Marx believed that there were classes in socialism or communism, or that there would be a dictatorship of the proletarian class in socialism or communism, just provide some kind of textual evidence.

If you don't care what Marx said, well, okay. Just be transparent about the fact that you're developing your own theory about socialism and the transition to it.

[Tim Redd]

deleted

[Q]

This can be resolved pretty easily. If you want us to believe that Marx believed that there were classes in socialism or communism, or that there would be a dictatorship of the proletarian class in socialism or communism, just provide some kind of textual evidence.

If you don't care what Marx said, well, okay. Just be transparent about the fact that you're developing your own theory about socialism and the transition to it.
As comrade Moshé Machover remarked pretty well recently (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/985/the-party-we-need):


But whether Marx said it or not is Marxology. The real question is whether the idea and the conclusion can be defended logically and empirically.

Mind you, it is the science part of Marxism that is in most need of amendment. A philosophical idea can last for hundreds of years and still be very usable - you can find people adhering to very ancient philosophies without much change. But in science that does not happen. No scientific doctrine of the mid-19th century can remain intact today without serious amendment.

The best comparison is Darwin’s Origin of species. Mostly it is right and it has survived very well. (I also think that Capital too has survived very well, but that not everything it contains is correct.) If there is something attributed to Darwin when actually it was TH Huxley, ‘Darwin’s bulldog’, who said it, it does not really matter. What is important is, does it stand the test of present-day understanding of evolution? And obviously not everything does. Similarly you cannot expect every conclusion, every statement of Marx on political economy to hold up today. If it did, that would be very unusual in the history of science. And political economy is the scientific part of Marxism - other parts are more philosophic, more visionary and so on. So, if I'm accused of not being a Marxologist, then again I plead guilty: I have nothing in common with the dogmatist method of upholding the texts of Marx as something timeless or sacred. So, flowing from this, quoting this or that text from Marx will, in itself, prove nothing. It is a waste of my time in fact.

I am however a Marxist, that is, I try to look at society in an objective manner, learn its processes of continuous change, test what works and doesn't and on that basis try to come up with workable political strategies for the working class. This is, in a nutshell, a scientific approach to this, not a dogmatic one.

So again, if you can provide some line of argumentation - without an appeal to authority (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-authority/) - then I'm very willing to look into the subject and be corrected. I'm not willing however to be lectured by a bunch of cultists.

[Tim Redd]

This can be resolved pretty easily. If you want us to believe that Marx believed ... that there would be a dictatorship of the proletarian class in socialism or communism, just provide some kind of textual evidence.

Can you provide textual proof that Marx thought socialism (not communism) would be classless? Though as you say there is no need to be dogmatic either.

Do you see any difference between socialism and communism? Do you see socialism as a lower stage of communism, both of which have no classes? Or do you not use the term socialism?

If you think that socialism does not have classes, you are swimming against the widespread phenomenon among Marxists over decades who use and think of the word "socialism" with respect to social phases as equivalent to the dictatorship of the proletariat (dop) and typically with classes. (As I stated in the thread "'Transitional Society' is not a Marxian Concept", I do think it's possible to have the dop without classes.) I do see value in using "socialism" to make the commonly used distinction between the 2 post seizure of power eras - one when the dop and classes are present versus the other when they are not present during communism. Using the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" can be unwieldy and prone to giving the wrong impression in certain situations.

[Five Year Plan]

As comrade Moshé Machover remarked pretty well recently (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/985/the-party-we-need):

So, if I'm accused of not being a Marxologist, then again I plead guilty: I have nothing in common with the dogmatist method of upholding the texts of Marx as something timeless or sacred. So, flowing from this, quoting this or that text from Marx will, in itself, prove nothing. It is a waste of my time in fact.

I am however a Marxist, that is, I try to look at society in an objective manner, learn its processes of continuous change, test what works and doesn't and on that basis try to come up with workable political strategies for the working class. This is, in a nutshell, a scientific approach to this, not a dogmatic one.

So again, if you can provide some line of argumentation - without an appeal to authority (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-authority/) - then I'm very willing to look into the subject and be corrected. I'm not willing however to be lectured by a bunch of cultists.

You seem to be confused. I didn't say "You are wrong because you disagree with Marx." I don't think we have to uphold Marx's texts like they are sacred and perfect, either. I do, however, think it is important that if we are going to develop our ideas in response to what Marx said, while basing them on Marx's methodology, we should be clear on where our interpretation of specific issues differs from Marx's. After all, he was the one who pioneered our methodology and employed it to great effect in analyzing capitalism and the struggle against it.

This requires that we be clear on what Marx actually did or did not write as a starting point, not a destination.. That is why I explained in my last post to you that, while your model might or might not be an advance over Marx's, we should be clear from the start whether you are developing a perspective that contradicts his. I think it's clear from the lack of textual evidence you provide that your view does represent a departure from Marx's. It happens to be a departure that is shared by Stalinists, who claim that the dictatorship of the proletariat existed within socialist society in the Soviet Union. This doesn't necessarily mean you share their analysis for the same reasons. It does mean that you are starting off in some less than encouraging company, and places an onus on you in clarifying how your understanding of a dictatorship in socialism differs from theirs, among other issues.


Can you provide textual proof that Marx thought socialism (not communism) would be classless? Though as you say there is no need to be dogmatic either.

Do you see any difference between socialism and communism? Do you see socialism as a lower stage of communism, both of which have no classes? Or do you not use the term socialism?

If you think that socialism does not have classes, you are swimming against the widespread phenomenon among Marxists over decades who use and think of the word "socialism" with respect to social phases as equivalent to the dictatorship of the proletariat (dop) and typically with classes. (As I stated in the thread "'Transitional Society' is not a Marxian Concept", I do think it's possible to have the dop without classes.) I do see value in using "socialism" to make the commonly used distinction between the 2 post seizure of power eras - one when the dop and classes are present versus the other when they are not present during communism. Using the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" can be unwieldy and prone to giving the wrong impression in certain situations.

It has been pointed out to you in other threads that your understanding of how Marx used these terms is, to say the very least, highly convoluted. Until I posted a quote from the Critique of the Gotha Program, you weren't even aware that Marx discussed different phases of communist society.

And speaking of the Critique, it contains a quote of Marx's clearly talking about what the dictatorship of the proletariat was: "Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

Between capitalist and communist society, there is a dictatorship. Not IN communism, either what Marx in that same work describes as communism in its lower phase (what Lenin called "socialism" in State and Revolution) or in its higher phase.

Marx repeatedly defined communism, encompassing lower and higher phases, as "cooperative production" carried on by "associated producers" not by classes. In the Civil War in France, he says: "If cooperative production is not to remain a sham and a snare; if it is to supersede the capitalist system; if united cooperative societies are to regulate national production upon a common plan, thus taking it under their own control, and putting an end to the constant anarchy and periodical convulsions which are the fatality of capitalist production—what else, gentlemen, would it be but Communism, “possible” Communism?"

There's also Marx, in the Ciritique of the Gotha Program: "Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning."

Note that Marx doesn't say that cooperative society is based on class ownership of the means of production. Class no longer exists, and neither do the distinctions.

There is also Engels, in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific: "The proletariat seizes the public power, and by means of this transforms the socialized means of production, slipping from the hands of the bourgeoisie, into public property. By this act, the proletariat frees the means of production from the character of capital they have thus far borne, and gives their socialized character complete freedom to work itself out. Socialized production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible. The development of production makes the existence of different classes of society thenceforth an anachronism. In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the State dies out. Man, at last the master of his own form of social organization, becomes at the same time the lord over Nature, his own master — free."

Please observe that Engels doesn't say that the proletariat seizes public power, and in that very act establishes socialism. He, following Marx, talks about the dictatorship overseeing a process of transitioning from capitalism, overseen by a dictatorship of capital, to socialism, where cooperative production takes place without a state overseeing class control over the means of production. The revolutionary transformation from one to the other doesn't occur overnight, and the revolution only makes socialism "possible," not a fait accompli. Similarly, it doesn't make classes non-existent, it makes them an "anachronism" that still needs to be eliminated through the process of revolutionary transformation. Only when socialism is established and classes are gone do we have a society where cooperative production has fully transcended social anarchy, and its attendant class antagonisms, in production.

[Tim Redd]

It has been pointed out to you in other threads that your understanding of how Marx used these terms is, to say the very least, highly convoluted. Until I posted a quote from the Critique of the Gotha Program, you weren't even aware that Marx discussed different phases of communist society.

And speaking of the Critique, it contains a quote of Marx's clearly talking about what the dictatorship of the proletariat was: "Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

Well yes I first raised the above Critique quote you just restated in my posts to you in another thread and that quote was the basis of my statement that the continued existence of the dop should be mainly a political matter. It's continued existence should not only hinge on whether classes still exist as you claim, but also whether or not the socio-political transition is complete. E.g. if racism, or sexism still existed when classes are abolished, or people's outlook has not been sufficiently revolutionized although classes have been abolished then the dop should continue until the socio-political issues are resolved.

As Marx states from Civil War in France:
"the class dictatorship of the proletariat as the necessary transit point to the abolition of class distinctions generally, to the abolition of all the relations of production on which they rest, to the abolition of all the social relations that correspond to these relations of production, to the revolutionizing of all the ideas that result from these social relations."


Between capitalist and communist society, there is a dictatorship. Not IN communism, either what Marx in that same work describes as communism in its lower phase (what Lenin called "socialism" in State and Revolution) or in its higher phase.? If Marx calls where the dop exists lower communism then Marx does see the dop IN communism. I think we should reserve the term communism for a classless, stateless society and to me Marx's statement that the dop exists between capitalism and communism backs that up

Yes, you have presented a quote from Marx in another thread that talks about lower forms of communism with classes and with presence of the dop to move to higher forms. But to me and most Marxist his above statement about the dop as the class or political transition between capitalism and communism (full stop, no mention of stages), holds more weight with most Marxists and for good reason. It is more logical and coherent. And that is because most of see communism as a classless, stateless society, and clearly Marx from "Civil War in France" above and below in "Marx to Weydemeyer In New York" below, speaks of the dop as a class phenomena and as a transition from capitalism to the abolition of classes.

"Marx to Weydemeyer In New York":
"My own contribution was 1. to show that the existence of classes is merely bound up with certain historical phases in the development of production; 2. that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat;[1] 3. that this dictatorship itself constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society."

And here most Marxists call the dop with classes and a political state, socialism. I have not seen Marx or Engels use the term socialism in a way that would be inconsistent with that. But again Marx and Engels views are not to be taken dogmatically as you appear to do by clinging to the single "lower to higher" quote from Marx, but rather how we use the term socialism (regarding a stage of society) should be based upon factual consistence and an overall, holistic understanding of Marxist literature.


---
"Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme

[Five Year Plan]

Well yes I first raised the latter Critique quote you just restated in my posts to you in another thread and that quote was the basis of my statement that the continued existence of the dop should be mainly a political matter. It's continued existence should not only hinge on whether classes still exist as you claim, but also whether or not the socio-political transition is complete. E.g. if racism, or sexism still existed when classes are abolished, or people's outlook has not been sufficiently revolutionized although classes have been abolished then the dop should continue until the socio-political issues are resolved.

Having at first made the mistake of equating the dictatorship of the proletariat to a mode of production, you are now making the opposite mistake of trying to drive an absolute wedge between the dictatorship of the proletariat and the transition to communism, by calling one political and the other economic. Certainly the dictatorship of the proletariat is a political form, but it functions to oversee the transition to communism. When that transition is done, there is no more need for a dictatorship. In fact, there are no more classes out of which a class dictatorship might form.


? If Marx calls where the dop exists lower communism then Marx does see the dop IN communism. I think we should reserve the term communism for a classless, stateless society and to me Marx's statement that the dop exists between capitalism and communism which he has stated in at least 2 other places as well, backs up my view.

Read the quotes about the dictatorship and lower communism again. Marx doesn't equate them. He talks about communism as having multiple phases depending upon how distribution of proceeds of labor occurs (which is why it makes no sense to talk about these different phases as distinct modes of production). He also talk about a dictatorship of the proletariat corresponding to the economic transformation from capitalism to communism. He most certainly does not say, anywhere, that the DotP exists in any phase of communism. It corresponds to the transition to communism. It exists between capitalist and communist society. It does not exist IN communist society, not in its lower phase, and not in its higher phase.


Yes, you have presented a quote of Marx from one place that talks about lower forms of communism with classes and with presence of the dop to move to higher forms. But his multiple statements about the dop as the class or political transition between capitalism and communism (full stop, no mention of stages), holds more weight with most Marxists and for good reason. It is more logical and coherent. And here most Marxists call the dop with classes and a political state, socialism. I have not seen Marx or Engels use the term socialism in a way that would be inconsistent with that. But again that's not decisive in a question that should be decided on a logical and coherent basis that fits the facts.

Yes, Marx makes multiple statements about the DotP as the political transition between capitalism and communism. What you seem to be doing is reading Lenin's semantic distinction into Marx in a way that miscontrues both authors. For Lenin, socialism was the lower phase of communism (Marx never used the term socialism in this way). You then seem to say that when Marx talks about the transition to "communism," he means only the higher phase, and that the lower phase (which you wrongly seem to think Marx referred to as "socialism") therefore is part of the "transition to communism" with a dictatorship of the proletariat. That's just wrong. When Marx talks about the transformation of capitalism to communism, he is referring to what Lenin would call the transformation of capitalism to socialism. The society between these is not socialism. It is a class society under a dictatorship of the proletariat leading a transition to socialism.

[Tim Redd]

aufheben, your and Marx's point that because collective, social control of the means of production exists initially after the seizure of power even if the dop and classes exist, and that form of control is expanded via the dop to be the only form [of the means of production] later after post revolution denotes a unity - the unity of the communist form of control of the means of production - across the post revolution period. Thus that can be seen as a movement from a lower to higher communism. [And this I agree with.]

However I think there is a value in distinguishing the lower form as socialism. Being a semantic shortcut is one of them, but more because it signifies how very, very much more class struggle needs to be waged to fully revolutionize the society after the initial seizure of power. And that there is a easy danger for the course to reversed and capitalism restored. (Though I think that is possible under communism, I think the danger is much less so.). Despite the presence of communist control of the means of production throughout the post revolution period in most advanced technology, imperialist countries, the fact remains a tenacious class based political struggle remains in them to expand the communist mode and even mores so to socialize and revolutionize all aspects of people's minds and society. There will be post revolution, revolutions to make this happen. The political state in the form of the dop will still exist. These affairs are politically qualitatively different from what will be the case under advanced communism when the dop can whither away. That is why other Marxists and I make a big deal out of socialism which we equate with the dop.

The point I raise here about the decisiveness of the political is underscored by the fact that the Chinese ostensibly have public control of the main pillars of the means of production, but true Marxists would never call that communism.

[Five Year Plan]

aufheben, your and Marx's point that because collective, social control of the means of production exists initially after the seizure of power even if the dop and classes exist, and that form of control is expanded via the dop to be the only form later after post revolution that is a unity - the unity of the communist form of control of the means of production - across the post revolution period. Thus that can be seen as a movement from a lower to higher communism.

I don't know why you call this "your and Marx's point" when this is not our point at all. The point is that the dotp's growing control over the means of production is not the same thing as socialism, because that control occurs in a society which is still subject to competitive pressures both domestically and internationally. Socialism is the result of that expansion coming to encompass all of society domestically and around the globe. Before that, you have a dictatorship of the proletariat struggling to bring socialism about in the countries where workers have seized power. Until the international victory, whatever state control over the means of production is exercised domestically will still be stamped by the reified value relations entailed in the international division of labor, which will prevent fully rational and democratic collective planning to take place.

As Tim Cornelis explained to you in the other thread, it's Workers' revolution ==> Dictatorship of the Proletariat over an attenuated form of capitalism transitioning to socialism ==> Socialism ==> Communism.


However I think there is a value in distinguishing the lower form as socialism. Being a semantic shortcut is one of them, but more because it signifies how very, very much more class struggle needs to be waged to fully revolutionize the society after the initial seizure of power.Marx and Lenin talked about this lower phase as being a period when class struggle is over, the dictatorship has ended, but material abundance has not reached the point where the end goal of communism (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need) can be attained. As a result, distribution occurs according to the principle of labor contribution. The difference is not one of production or class struggle over production. It is a difference or regimes of distribution.

You can keep restating a hundred times over that, according to Marx's and Engels' model, the dictatorship of the proletariat exists under the lower phase of communism (socialism). Until I see textual evidence, I'll just keep pointing out that you're wrong. If this happens enough times, I'll just assume you're a troll not worth the effort.

[Tim Redd]

I don't know why you call this "your and Marx's point" when this is not our point at all.

Well I take Marx's point as being that in advanced countries after the initial seizure of power the proletariat collectives control over at least the main pillars of the means of production which is lower communism and expands that control and undertakes social relation revolutionization via the political dictatorship of the proletariat to a completely classless, stateless society of advanced communism down the road.


The point is that the dotp's growing control over the means of production is not the same thing as socialism,As I observe, you're wrong about how most Marxists define socialism. I observe that most Marxists define socialism as being synonymous with the dictatorship of the proletariat (DoP), which typically still has classes and the dictatorship of the proletariat itself exists as a political state. Not that right is a matter of numbers, but I'm pointing how socialism is thought of among most Marxists.

Most Marxists don't see the scenario as you do after the proletarian seizure of power in advanced countries as:
Capitalism transitioning to socialism ==> Socialism ==> Communism

Most Marxists see the scenario for after proletarian seizure of power in advanced countries as:
Socialism/DoP/lower Communism ==> advanced Communism. ["x/y/z" denotes being synonymous]

Most Leninists and Maoists (which I am) see the scenario for after proletarian seizure of power in less developed countries as:
Capitalism transitioning to socialism (Revolutionary or New Democracy) ==> Socialism/DoP/lower Communism ==> advanced Communism.


You can keep restating a hundred times over that, according to Marx's and Engels' model, the dictatorship of the proletariat exists under the lower phase of communism (socialism). Until I see textual evidence, I'll just keep pointing out that you're wrong. If this happens enough times, I'll just assume you're a troll not worth the effort. It is you despite the multiple quotes I have posted showing that Marx posits that both the DoP and lower communism exist right after the seizure of power who refuses to believe they exist together. If that's trolling there it is. However understanding that people often don't accept the truth even when staring at it, let's accept that we've exhausted what points we can make to each other for now and that we'll just have to disagree. Perhaps taking it up with each other again in the future.

---
"Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme

[reb]

Political transitions and forms can occur and preclude the material basis for such things according to Q, common to all social-democrats including those of the stalinist variety.


As I observe, you're wrong about how most Marxists define socialism. I observe that most Marxists define socialism as being synonymous with the dictatorship of the proletariat (DoP), which typically still has classes and the dictatorship of the proletariat itself exists as a political state. Not that right is a matter of numbers, but I'm pointing how socialism is thought of among most Marxists.

Most Marxists don't see the scenario as you do after the proletarian seizure of power in advanced countries as:
Capitalism transitioning to socialism ==> Socialism ==> Communism

Most Marxists see the scenario for after proletarian seizure of power in advanced countries as:
Socialism/DoP/lower Communism ==> advanced Communism. ["x/y/z" denotes being synonymous]

Most Leninists and Maoists (which I am) see the scenario for after proletarian seizure of power in less developed countries as:
Capitalism transitioning to socialism (Revolutionary or New Democracy) ==> Socialism/DoP/lower Communism ==> advanced Communism.

Since you don't accept this and we've been around the barn on it a few times, we'll just have to disagree for now. Maybe we'll take it up again in the future. Just don't think that you're so important or your arguments are so beyond reproach that if someone doesn't agree with you long term they're a troll. People disagree long term everywhere and all the time without one or the other being a troll.

You haven't provided a reason for this at all or why the differ. I suspect that if pushed you'll resort to hand-waving about idealism or something.

[Five Year Plan]

Well I take Marx's point as being that in advanced countries after the initial seizure of power the proletariat collectives control over the means of production which is lower communism and expands that control and undertakes social relation revolutionization via the political dictatorship of the proletariat to a completely classless, stateless society of advanced communism down the road.

As I observe, you're wrong about how most Marxists define socialism. I observe that most Marxists define socialism as being synonymous with the dictatorship of the proletariat (DoP), which typically still has classes and the dictatorship of the proletariat itself exists as a political state. Not that right is a matter of numbers, but I'm pointing how socialism is thought of among most Marxists.

Most Marxists don't see the scenario as you do after the proletarian seizure of power in advanced countries as:
Capitalism transitioning to socialism ==> Socialism ==> Communism

Most Marxists see the scenario for after proletarian seizure of power in advanced countries as:
Socialism/DoP/lower Communism ==> advanced Communism. ["x/y/z" denotes being synonymous]

Most Leninists and Maoists (which I am) see the scenario for after proletarian seizure of power in less developed countries as:
Capitalism transitioning to socialism (Revolutionary or New Democracy) ==> Socialism/DoP/lower Communism ==> advanced Communism.

It is you despite the multiple quotes I have posted showing that Marx posits that both the DoP and lower communism exist right after the seizure of power who refuses to believe they exist together. If that's trolling there it is. However understanding that people often don't accept the truth even when staring at it, let's accept that we've exhausted what points we can make to each other for now and that we'll just have to disagree. Perhaps taking it up with each other again in the future.

---
"Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme

I can't be held responsible for what "most Marxists" do or don't say. I am arguing about what Marx did say, which is that socialism is a classless society where, by definition, there cannot be a class dictatorship.

[Bostana]

So, plot twist: Did I win because of my amazing theoretical insights or because of the amazing lack of insight among the rest of Revleft?

Inception

[Tim Redd]

I can't be held responsible for what "most Marxists" do or don't say. I am arguing about what Marx did say, which is that socialism is a classless society where, by definition, there cannot be a class dictatorship.

Please provide such a quote from Marx. There are plenty of places where Marx mentions that communism will become classless, but I see nowhere that he mentions that a stage called socialism is classless. But as many have said in the discussion it isn't a matter of quotes but of what is effective for the socialist revolutionary struggle based upon the overall web of theoretical knowledge from the social sciences, especially Marxism and based upon the facts of social development especially in the Marxist context. And from those things most other Marxists and myself thinks it makes eminent sense to equate the dictatorship of the proletariat with socialism and typically the existence of classes.

As I have written elsewhere toward the end of the dictatorship of the proletariat classes may no longer exist but there may still the need to further revoutionize various aspects of society including people's ideas so the dictatorship of the proletariat may need to exist until the process completes before withering away into classless, political stateless advanced communism. But in general the dictatorship of the proletariat is synonymous with socialism for most Marxists for good reason.

[Alexios]

this is funny as shit

[Brutus]

This is the most tense chit-chat thread ever.

[Five Year Plan]

Please provide such a quote from Marx.

I provided them on post #27 of this thread.


There are plenty of places where Marx mentions that communism will become classless, but I see nowhere that he mentions that a stage called socialism is classless.Marx used socialism and communism interchangeably. He talked about different phases of this mode of production in the Critique of the Gotha Program. Lenin, in State and Revolution, decided to call the lower phase "socialism" and the higher phase "communism," but even he was clear: there were no classes in either phase. Are you suggesting that Lenin was departing from Marx on this issue?


But as many have said in the discussion it isn't a matter of quotes but of what is effective for the socialist revolutionary struggle based upon the overall web of theoretical knowledge from the social sciences, especially Marxism and based upon the facts of social development especially in the Marxist context. And from those things most other Marxists and myself thinks it makes eminent sense to equate the dictatorship of the proletariat with socialism and typically the existence of classes.Ok, then provide an argument "from the social sciences" as to how classes and class dictatorships can exist when value relations and commodity production have been overthrown. So far you haven't. What will these classes be? Clearly not capitalist or petty bourgeois in any sense, since those classes depends upon value relations and commodity production.


As I have written elsewhere toward the end of the dictatorship of the proletariat classes may no longer exist but there may still the need to further revoutionize various aspects of society including people's ideas so the dictatorship of the proletariat may need to exist until the process completes before withering away into classless, political stateless advanced communism. But in general the dictatorship of the proletariat is synonymous with socialism for most Marxists for good reason.The problem with this model is that you are talking about a class dictatorship and the existence of classes in society as if they are disconnected, unrelated things. "There might or might not be a dictatorship of a class after classes no longer exist." Why don't you re-read this and get back to me when you realize how non-sensical it is?

[Ele'ill]

smash all states and hierarchies no exceptions

[Tim Redd]

I provided them on post #27 of this thread.

You provided no quote there in #27 that Marx or Lenin thought that that socialism, or lower communism would be classless, or without the dotp. Advanced communism is a different matter. If you had such a quote you could easily copy it here now.

You wrote quite a bit in your last reply, but you can't find 30 seconds to recopy an appropriate quote? You're not fooling anyone except perhaps yourself.

[reb]

You provided no quote there in #27 that Marx or Lenin thought that socialism would be classless, or without the dotp. If you had such a quote you world easily copy it here now.

You wrote quite a bit in your last reply, but you can't find time to recopy an appropriate quote? You're not fooling anyone except perhaps yourself.

You'd have to pretty ignorant of Marx to think that the lowest phase of communism has classes and what leninscum like to call a "semi-state".

[Tim Redd]

You'd have to pretty ignorant of Marx to think that the lowest phase of communism has classes and what leninscum like to call a "semi-state". Care to quote Marx or explain why lower communism wouldn't have classes? I don't mind being shown wrong but you haven't done it.

[Remus Bleys]

"Socialism means the abolition of classes."
Lenin
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/oct/30.htm

[Five Year Plan]

"Socialism means the abolition of classes."
Lenin
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/oct/30.htm

That section of the work is good enough to warrant a larger quote that drives home much of what I have been repeating.



Socialism means the abolition of classes. The dictatorship of the proletariat has done all it could to abolish classes. But classes cannot be abolished at one stroke.

And classes still remain and will remain in the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The dictatorship will become unnecessary when classes disappear. Without the dictatorship of the proletariat they will not disappear.

Classes have remained, but in the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat every class has undergone a change, and the relations between the classes have also changed. The class struggle does not disappear under the dictatorship of the proletariat; it merely assumes different forms.

[Sea]

If VMC and Q have a theory-off does that mean that Sam B and TAT get to have a.... nah, I won't say it.

[Zukunftsmusik]

smash all states and hierarchies no exceptions

Mari3L for most theoretically advanced user 2014

[Tim Redd]

Ok, then provide an argument "from the social sciences" as to how classes and class dictatorships can exist when value relations and commodity production have been overthrown. So far you haven't. What will these classes be? Clearly not capitalist or petty bourgeois in any sense, since those classes depends upon value relations and commodity production.

Overall the dictatorship of the proletariat is a revolutionary political effort to transition from capitalism to the realization of communism. Related to this, I'm clear that the a term like the "socialist stage" signifies not a mode of production or mix of modes of production, but rather is simply synonymous with the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat as a political phenomenon.

The dictatorship of the proletariat has had in the past, and will more often than not before socialist revolution is common worldwide have, the capitalist mode of production with classes operating within it. The dictatorship of the proletariat has so far when it existed in Russia and China contained class based commodity production as well as socialist revolutionary based production, where the means of production are owned and controlled by society as whole, excluding the bourgeoisie. A key effort, despite the poor eventual outcome, of the Russian and Chinese transition societies was to abolish commodity production and bring about the full realization of classless communist production. Of course capitalism was restored in Russia at the least after Stalin died if not before and in China when Mao died.

It's likely that the day after the seizure of power commodity based production will still be carried out by most small and medium sized firms. However, the proletariat will immediately seize large and especially monopoly firms. Down the road I can see where even after the small and medium sized firms have been converted to full social ownership, capitalism may still exist in other countries, or the society will not be fully revolutionized in terms of people's outlook, or in terms of relations amongst the people (racism, sexism, etc.) and therefore require the continued existence of the dictatorship of the proletariat. In that case there will be a single mode of production with no classes, but the political dictatorship of the proletariat will still be in place. Once whichever of the outstanding issues I listed are resolved the proletariat can then abolish the political state, the dictatorship of the proletariat and the society will be fully communist - not only no classes in the mode of production, but no political state either.

However my point remains that the dictatorship of the proletariat can and and likely will, for a while in most revolutions before revolution sweeps the world, contain capitalist relations of production and thus classes within them when they are initially created.

Marx and Engels always placed politics in command when considering an issue - including when considering issues that have to do with economics. My position looks at the dotp mainly from an overall political view and doesn't base the state of the revolution on a mechanistic economic view as would be the case by making the continued existence of the dotp hinge soley upon whether or not classes exist in the mode of production

[Tim Redd]

From Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme - Chapter 1

"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. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"

Here Marx defines a higher phase of communist society with the absence of various bad phenomena from capitalism. Marx mentions various defects in the "first phase of communism". It seems the only way to get rid of defects existing in the "first phase of communism" is via the dictatorship of the proletariat (dotp) as a transition. That is why I posit that the "first phase of communism" as synonymous with the dotp.

And this first phase of communism with the dotp, I have no trouble calling the socialist phase. However the main thing is establishing that the first phase of communism as it has just emerged from capitalism will exist and it will exist with the dotp to move society to the higher phase of communism.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I was not even nominated this year. That's the price I pay for not posting a lot in so many months. :crying:

haha yeah, that's why you didn't get nominated! :laugh:

[Five Year Plan]

From Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme - Chapter 1

"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. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"

Here Marx defines a higher phase of communist society with the absence of various bad phenomena from capitalism. Marx mentions various defects in the "first phase of communism". It seems the only way to get rid of defects existing in the "first phase of communism" is via the dictatorship of the proletariat (dotp) as a transition. That is why I posit that the "first phase of communism" as synonymous with the dotp.

And this first phase of communism with the dotp, I have no trouble calling the socialist phase. However the main thing is establishing that the first phase of communism as it has just emerged from capitalism will exist and it will exist with the dotp to move society to the higher phase of communism.

I honestly don't understand why you insist on trying to make this argument when it has been shown over and over by numerous people, providing ample textual evidence, that neither Marx nor Lenin believed that there would be classes under the lower phase of communism (socialism). Why are you so wedded to this argument? Would admitting that you're wrong mean that you have to stop draping yourself in the red flag of North Korea or "socialist" Albania? I guess we all have our priorities. Deifying Stalin or actually following Marx's methodology? Hmm. Choices, choices.

Try re-reading more carefully the passage you're discussing here. Marx doesn't "define a higher phase of communist society" as being "the absence of various bad phenomena from capitalism." That is a vague construction intended to imply that, if the higher phase doesn't have bad capitalist stuff, then the lower phase DOES have bad capitalist stuff like classes! Therefore classes exist under socialism! etc etc.

What Marx actually writes is that a higher stage of communism is differentiated from a lower stage on the basis of how labor is recompensed. There is no implication that capitalist production practices, or class distinctions, exist under the lower phase of communism. If they did exist, then it wouldn't be "communism" at all. What exists in that lower phase of communism is a similar kind of formal equality to what you find under capitalism. But in the absence of classes and exploitation, the inequality that results from that formal equality is dramatically different. Marx makes this point clearly: "Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption."

There is no mention, anywhere in that passage or ANY passage you can dig up from Marx, Engels, or Lenin, of a dictatorship of the proletariat or ANY kind of class dictatorship, under any of the phases of communist society. It is an extreme revision of their writings, frequently used to bolster the moral credentials of shitty Stalinist bureaucrats, to posit that there will be value and class under "socialism."