Can someone very simply explain exploitation?

[Jacob Cliff]

I tend to overexplain it and doubt I undersyand it well

[Jimmie Higgins]

The way exploitation seems to be generally understood is that some kind of (power or relationship) imbalance results in someone getting a bad deal compared to the exploiter. This is ok, but way too broad and usually relies on some kind or subjective moral sense of what's "fair".

[short answer]I think the marxist version is similar but more based in productive relationships where social relationships create the power for the exploiters to systematically take a portion of the value created by the exploited. [/end the short answer]

In slave and feudal societies this (economic) exploitation is direct and done by "rights" of the lords and whatnot. In capitalism it's indirect and done through property rights and usually the wage system. The problem with the general definition is that anyone can define what "fair" is as capitalists complain that profits and power over workers is fair because capitalists "take the risk". Aristocrats and slave owners paternalistically claimed their exploitation was fair because the defended/housed "their" peasants/slaves. Capitalist exploiters can be pretty paternalistic too: "makers" and "job creators" for us poor slobs who should be happy for the luxury of working for them.

[The Feral Underclass]

https://soc331.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/420748_183792161725872_129370207168068_259071_2121 981741_n1.jpg

[Red Star Rising]

I tend to overexplain it and doubt I undersyand it well

I would recommend reading what Marx had to say about surplus value. He wrote about it extensively in Das Kapital, googling it can probably give you specific quotes and such.

Surplus value is essentially the value extracted by the capitalist through human labour that is not paid back to the employees. The unfairness of this system manifests itself as an ever-growing wealth gap in which one minority class exerts exploitative power over the majority.

[Jacob Cliff]

But would this not exist in socialism too? Obviously the worker can't get back the full valye of his labor. How does socialism change this?

[Bala Perdida]

But would this not exist in socialism too? Obviously the worker can't get back the full valye of his labor. How does socialism change this?
No, this is eliminated in socialism. Class is eliminated and money is definitely eliminated. Instead of producing for surplus value, products are produced for need. Work will be completely different than how it is under capitalism, so class relations that cause exploitation will be destroyed and disposed of.

[motion denied]

But would this not exist in socialism too? Obviously the worker can't get back the full valye of his labor. How does socialism change this?


https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

[Comrade #138672]

Exploitation can be defined in terms of the labor theory of value, i.e.,

W = c + L

L is the added labor, c the productively consumed constant capital. L can then be divided into v + s:

L = v + s

Basically, v is what the worker receives and s is what the capitalist extracts from the worker. This is essentially free labor for the capitalist. Then, the rate of exploitation can be defined as:

e' = s / v

Although, technically, exploitation would still exist if s = 0, but this is an exception to the general rule. Capitalism could simply not exist, if, in general, s = 0.

[The Feral Underclass]

How are any of these explanations simple?

[Loony Le Fist]

But would this not exist in socialism too? Obviously the worker can't get back the full valye of his labor. How does socialism change this?

Wrong. Through automation it would be possible for workers to actually get back more than the value of their labor. It sounds like magic, but it's really just definitions. Unfortunately capitalist automation prevents this.

[Blake's Baby]

Of course it's not possible for workers to get back 'more' than the value they produce - except by taking the value other workers produce.

All social wealth is a result of people doing things to stuff. If 4 billion workers do things to stuff, then if each worker is entitled to 'their own proportion', each worker is entitled to 1/4 billionth of the stuff.

But the couple-of-billion non-workers (old, infirm, young etc) then starve to death, unless they can persuade the workers to give them some of the stuff. And anyone who's primarily 'non-productive' (because they're for example too busy healing people not making sofas) may also be counted as not making stuff, it rather depends.

So; the 'best' way to sort it is to say that all the stuff (made by less than the total number of people) belongs to all the people (which must always be greater than the number of people producing the stuff). This means that the notion that 'the worker' ever gets her/his 'just proportion' (and no less) must necessarily be nonsense.

[David Warner]

What is exploitation? The extraction of surplus value by the bourgeoisie through control over the means of production and the perpetuation of this process by means of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.


But would this not exist in socialism too? Obviously the worker can't get back the full value of his labor. How does socialism change this?

How is the bourgeoisie supposed to exploit the workers if the latter hold political power (and thus have control over the means of production)? Under the dictatorship of the proletariat, whatever the worker doesn't get directly, he receives in some other form -- through the workers' state -- some kind of service or investment (to raise productivity) or something. Inequality does, however, exist under socialism as distribution is according to work, not needs (as it would be under communism).

[Blake's Baby]

... Inequality does, however, exist under socialism as distribution is according to work, not needs (as it would be under communism).

One of the most fundamental misunderstandings of Marx ever perpetrated, in my opinion.

[The Disillusionist]

Haha....Yeah, these explanations aren't simple in the least.

Exploitation: To use something or someone for some kind of benefit to the user/s, often at a cost to that thing or person.

That is exploitation. However, as this thread has made very clear, there is a ton of context around the word that you have to muddle through, and the word can mean very different things in different contexts. For example, anthropologists often talk about the exploitation of tools and resources as a common part of everyday human life, while Marxists oftern talk about exploitation as the use of workers for profit as a negative effect of a capitalist economy.

[David Warner]

One of the most fundamental misunderstandings of Marx ever perpetrated, in my opinion.

Well, let's see what Marx has to say on this --


Hence, equal right here is still in principle -- bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case.

In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.

But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

[U]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!


And Lenin (from The State and Revolution) --


And so, in the first phase of communist society (usually called socialism) "bourgeois law" is not abolished in its entirety, but only in part, only in proportion to the economic revolution so far attained, i.e., only in respect of the means of production. "Bourgeois law" recognizes them as the private property of individuals. Socialism converts them into common property. To that extent--and to that extent alone--"bourgeois law" disappears.

However, it persists as far as its other part is concerned; it persists in the capacity of regulator (determining factor) in the distribution of products and the allotment of labor among the members of society. The socialist principle, "He who does not work shall not eat", is already realized; the other socialist principle, "An equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor", is also already realized. But this is not yet communism, and it does not yet abolish "bourgeois law", which gives unequal individuals, in return for unequal (really unequal) amounts of labor, equal amounts of products.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Haha....Yeah, these explanations aren't simple in the least.

Exploitation: To use something or someone for some kind of benefit to the user/s, often at a cost to that thing or person.

That is exploitation. However, as this thread has made very clear, there is a ton of context around the word that you have to muddle through, and the word can mean very different things in different contexts. For example, anthropologists often talk about the exploitation of tools and resources as a common part of everyday human life, while Marxists oftern talk about exploitation as the use of workers for profit as a negative effect of a capitalist economy.

Yeah, that's the general term, but it's so broad as to be useless in the way I think the o.p. means it. It's like saying the definition of labor is "doing something that results in something else" or that revolution is "a turn over".

[Creative Destruction]

Well, let's see what Marx has to say on this --



And Lenin (from The State and Revolution) --

1.) Under the first phase of socialism, the general social product is still distributed by need, but goods that cannot be made non-scarce would be rationed through this work-point system. Deductions are made from these work points -- as Marx states -- to go for general social welfare (ensuring the needs of the old, infirm, young and whomever cannot work), and other social projects, such as education and health care.

2.) I suspect what Blake's Baby is referring to, when replying to you, is that there is no "socialism/communism" dual-stage system. This is a major error made on the part of Lenin (I don't know where he got that the first phase here is "usually called socialism" while the latter phase is called "communism" because he didn't get it from Marx.) It is all socialism and socialism is communism, where it regards Marx. He doesn't delineate between the two, because there is no reason to. The fundamental underpinnings of the society are the same -- which is an abolition of class and value and, consequently, capitalism.

[Jimmie Higgins]

2.) I suspect what Blake's Baby is referring to, when replying to you, is that there is no "socialism/communism" dual-stage system. This is a major error made on the part of Lenin (I don't know where he got that the first phase here is "usually called socialism" while the latter phase is called "communism" because he didn't get it from Marx.) It is all socialism and socialism is communism, where it regards Marx. He doesn't delineate between the two, because there is no reason to. The fundamental underpinnings of the society are the same -- which is an abolition of class and value and, consequently, capitalism.

Well an import and difference between marx writings on this and lenin's in state and revolution is that marx was trying to talk about how communism could be achived (that "a" could be replaced with "b") in a general theoretical sense whereas "state and Revolution" was written as people were grappling with, well workers can take power, but then what specifically to get from a to b.

In that context, imo there is a need and reason to distinguish between the two regardless of if people call it "lower phase" or "socialism" or "transition" or "revolutionary period".

[Creative Destruction]

Well an import and difference between marx writings on this and lenin's in state and revolution is that marx was trying to talk about how communism could be achived (that "a" could be replaced with "b") in a general theoretical sense whereas "state and Revolution" was written as people were grappling with, well workers can take power, but then what specifically to get from a to b.

In that context, imo there is a need and reason to distinguish between the two regardless of if people call it "lower phase" or "socialism" or "transition" or "revolutionary period".

calling it a "transition" or the "revolutionary period" would be completely wrong. probably more wrong than the "socialism/communism" dichotomy. trying to revise Marx in this just ends up muddying up the entire argument, rather than clarifying it.

[David Warner]

there is no "socialism/communism" dual-stage system. This is a major error made on the part of Lenin (I don't know where he got that the first phase here is "usually called socialism" while the latter phase is called "communism" because he didn't get it from Marx.) It is all socialism and socialism is communism, where it regards Marx. He doesn't delineate between the two, because there is no reason to. The fundamental underpinnings of the society are the same -- which is an abolition of class and value and, consequently, capitalism.

Umm.. no.


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.

[The Disillusionist]

Yeah, that's the general term, but it's so broad as to be useless in the way I think the o.p. means it. It's like saying the definition of labor is "doing something that results in something else" or that revolution is "a turn over".

Fair point. I just tend to think too literally sometimes. :laugh:

[Creative Destruction]

Umm.. no.

yeah, that isn't socialism. that's the dictatorship of the proletariat which is the revolutionary period, as Marx said in what you just quoted. socialism (which is the same as communism) comes after that. class still exists under the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is obvious since there is still a proletariat class suppressing the bourgeoisie. this necessarily can't be socialism since socialism is classless. that's just one of many fundamental difference between the revolutionary period (the DotP), but it is one of the more obvious ones.

the fact that you're contesting this extremely basic fact, and misinterpreting Marx via Lenin, shows that Lenin ended up making the entire argument a lot less clear than if it was in the first place (which i don't think it is unclear to begin with. Marx made himself pretty damn clear in the Critique of the Gotha Program.)

[Jimmie Higgins]

calling it a "transition" or the "revolutionary period" would be completely wrong. probably more wrong than the "socialism/communism" dichotomy. trying to revise Marx in this just ends up muddying up the entire argument, rather than clarifying it.how so?

[Blake's Baby]

...
What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

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. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form..


(From Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt I)




Well, let's see what Marx has to say on this... ... and when you do, why not insert the phrase 'in socialism' into the quote, in order to get it to read what you claim it says?

Whether or not one thinks Marx was right to advocate labour-time vouchers (he certainly did so but I don't believe that it was his best idea) what I'm disputing is that he ever claimed there would be a 'socialist' stage. He does quite clearly call it a 'communist society', but doesn't call it 'socialism'.

As to your use of Pt IV of the Critique (linked in my sig as I spend so long explaining it to Leninists it's unreal):


...
The question then arises: What transformation will the state undergo in communist society? In other words, what social functions will remain in existence there that are analogous to present state functions? This question can only be answered scientifically, and one does not get a flea-hop nearer to the problem by a thousand-fold combination of the word 'people' with the word 'state'.

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...

No mention of 'socialism' here either, strangely enough. The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat certainly; 'capitalist society' and 'communist society' certainly, and a period of 'transformation (which is revolutionary)' betweem them. But no 'socialism'.

Why is that do you think?


EDIT: or, basically, what rednoise has been saying, but with added quotes.

================================================== =====================

Back to the OP: 'exploitation' is the owner of the means of production paying for the workers' labour but taking the products of the workers' labour (which are worth more than the labour as a commodity).

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

2.) I suspect what Blake's Baby is referring to, when replying to you, is that there is no "socialism/communism" dual-stage system. This is a major error made on the part of Lenin (I don't know where he got that the first phase here is "usually called socialism" while the latter phase is called "communism" because he didn't get it from Marx.)

He got it from the socialist movement of his time; as I recall it, at least Bukharin uses the terms in that way. Others at that time were already using the term "socialism" to mean any state interference in the economy, thus the "war socialism" of the German Empire. But note that Lenin never insists on the distinction; he notes the usage, but doesn't think it's important, theoretically, what the lower phase of the communist society is called. In fact he uses the terms "socialism" and "communism" interchangeably himself.

The problem seems to be that a lot of people read Lenin through the lens of "socialism in one country", but that's far from fair. Lenin in fact wouldn't dream of socialism "in one country", and had to underline to other Bolsheviks, several times, that Russia would not be able to build socialism in isolation.

[Red Star Rising]

yeah, that isn't socialism. that's the dictatorship of the proletariat which is the revolutionary period, as Marx said in what you just quoted. socialism (which is the same as communism) comes after that. class still exists under the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is obvious since there is still a proletariat class suppressing the bourgeoisie. this necessarily can't be socialism since socialism is classless. that's just one of many fundamental difference between the revolutionary period (the DotP), but it is one of the more obvious ones.

Does it matter what people call it? Dictatorship of the Proletariat is a) too wordy and b) has the off-putting word 'dictatorship' in it.

[Blake's Baby]

The prolem is if you change the terms and then read back into what Marx was saying with the new terms, you end up confusing categories.

Marx's schema is pretty simple I'd argue:

Capitalist society;
revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat (in the revolutionary period, with a class system, so this is if you like 'terminal capitalism' being transformed);
first stage of communist or socialist society (in which production is not yet capable of meeting all human wants - it is still 'marked by the birth pangs');
higher stage of communist or socialist society (in which free access communism has been achieved).

[Red Star Rising]

The prolem is if you change the terms and then read back into what Marx was saying with the new terms, you end up confusing categories.

Marx's schema is pretty simple I'd argue:

Capitalist society;
revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat (in the revolutionary period, with a class system, so this is if you like 'terminal capitalism' being transformed);
first stage of communist or socialist society (in which production is not yet capable of meeting all human wants - it is still 'marked by the birth pangs');
higher stage of communist or socialist society (in which free access communism has been achieved).

What would actually happen to the bourgeoisie in 'phase 1'? I always thought that the state would be put in the hands of the proletariat (with or without a vanguard) and the abolition of private property would result in the bourgeoisie being absorbed into the proletariat seeing as their existence is dependent on the existence of private property. Does this not make it classless?

[Blake's Baby]

No, it makes it revolutionary and transformative (and I presume by 'phase 1' you don't actually mean 'capitalist society', but 'the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat').

We start in capitalist society. The proletariat launches a revolutionary assault on capitalism and the state. This does not instantly deliver all power into the hands of the working class everywhere. The bourgeoisie is expropriated in one place, but not in all places. Capitalism (a world system) still exists. So in this phase of revolutionary transformation, we start with capitalsim, and begin to transform it locally into something else, but this is happening while capitalism still continues externally and, as we can't make the area under workers' control autarchic, to some extent internally as well - the proletarian power must still trade with the outside world for food etc, which implies the necessity of commodity production. The bourgeoisie still exists, though the proletarian power can perhaps be seen a 'national co-operative'. But co-operatives trading in a capitalist market are still capitalist enterprises. It doesn't matter if that's co-operatives operating in a capitalist state, or 'national co-operatives' operating in the world market.

It is only when capitalism is defeated world-wide and all property is collectivised (and by implication all bourgeoises have been integrated into the 'working class') that the human community is classless. One can't divide something into 1; then the class (section) is the same as the whole.

At this point we have ceased the 'transformation' of capitalism - capitalist society has been transformed into something else, that is, communist society. Until we have reached communist society, we haven't completely left capitalism behind.

[Creative Destruction]

Does it matter what people call it? Dictatorship of the Proletariat is a) too wordy and b) has the off-putting word 'dictatorship' in it.

you can call it the worker's flower power hour for all i give a shit, but at least be consistent. the dictatorship of the proletariat is not socialism, regardless of whether you thin it is "too wordy" or has "dictatorship" in it.

[Creative Destruction]

how so?

i mean, just look in this thread. Marx started off with a very basic argument, which Blake's Baby outlined above. he gave fundamental reasons for why there are the phases that there are and even explains the reason behind what they're called. the revisions that Lenin made -- even if, as 870 is suggesting, they were very surface changes to Lenin himself -- have spawned an entire generation of shitty politics and confusion that still continues today. the fact that we even have to correct when someone calls or implies that the dictatorship of the proletariat is socialism (when socialism is necessarily a stateless, classless society where there is no proletariat or bourgeoisie) shows how much of an issue this really is.

if people take issue with Marx's formulation, then they need to explain why first, instead of just revising and misinterpreting what he said.

[Jimmie Higgins]

i mean, just look in this thread. Marx started off with a very basic argument, which Blake's Baby outlined above. he gave fundamental reasons for why there are the phases that there are and even explains the reason behind what they're called. the revisions that Lenin made -- even if, as 870 is suggesting, they were very surface changes to Lenin himself -- have spawned an entire generation of shitty politics and confusion that still continues today. the fact that we even have to correct when someone calls or implies that the dictatorship of the proletariat is socialism (when socialism is necessarily a stateless, classless society where there is no proletariat or bourgeoisie) shows how much of an issue this really is.

if people take issue with Marx's formulation, then they need to explain why first, instead of just revising and misinterpreting what he said.no, I mean how does the semantic argument lead to "shitty politics"? I was trying to argue that content is more important.

I mean, idk, it's not like anyone can talk about socialism and communism without qualifying it anyway. It's not "communism" it's "communism: no, not like the USSR state capitalist regimes" anyway.

[Creative Destruction]

no, I mean how does the semantic argument lead to "shitty politics"? I was trying to argue that content is more important.

I mean, idk, it's not like anyone can talk about socialism and communism without qualifying it anyway. It's not "communism" it's "communism: no, not like the USSR state capitalist regimes" anyway.

i just gave you an example of why it leads to shitty politics. David Warner's crap he's dumped in this thread so far is exemplar.

the content is tied to the terms which identify it. again, Marx gave clear reasons for using the terms that he did. unless there's some compelling argument for revision on this part (one which i have not seen), i haven't seen any reason to revise the terms or the usage. regardless of whether Lenin meant for this to happen, people who take from Lenin have nonetheless distorted it in absurd ways. thus, you get people claiming and misinterpreting Marx, claiming that you can achieve socialism -- the content of which is a stateless, classless society -- within the revolutionary period, where there is still the state; rather than socialism being its own, separate from the dictatorship of the proletariat. or you get people pushing the idea (again, in this thread, David Warner) that socialism is included in the "revolutionary period" between capitalism and communism, which is completely incoherent.

if we're to take the content of these arguments seriously, then we need to take the terms used to identify them seriously and consistently. it's not just a semantic quarrel; it represents a break from Marx's arguments and revolutionary theory. it's like saying "blue" and "red" are just merely terms we use and that it doesn't matter what we use them for; when they're actually specific terms used to identify two fundamentally different colors. yeah, we could say "up" is "down" instead of using the terms how we do now, but should we? what's the justification for doing so? all it does is confuse the discussion.

Warner has it under his username that he is a "Dialectical Materialist," which i assume means he's a Stalinist. fitting, since Stalin is a great historical example of distorting Marx and us seeing the consequences of doing that.

[Blake's Baby]

no, I mean how does the semantic argument lead to "shitty politics"? I was trying to argue that content is more important...

As rednoise argues, it's important because confusion of terms can result in confusion of categories.

If you just change Marx's terminology, that's only a problem if you want to be understood. You could call the bourgeoisie 'triffids' and the proletariat 'cheesey nibbles' and the revolutionary dictatorship 'the dance of the unicorns' if you like.

But if you call the proletariat 'the bourgeoisie', and the bourgeoisie 'the artisan class', and the revolutionary distatorship 'a classless communal society', and then re-read Marx on this basis, you're fundamentally distorting what Marx meant.

[Loony Le Fist]

Of course it's not possible for workers to get back 'more' than the value they produce - except by taking the value other workers produce.

A self-replicating assembler can allow for this. You only have to build the first self-replicating machine. It then continues to build others that then specialize into different devices.

[Comrade #138672]

A self-replicating assembler can allow for this. You only have to build the first self-replicating machine. It then continues to build others that then specialize into different devices.No, this would still not add more value than the value of the worker's labor. In fact, it would decrease the value of the commodity significantly. If a self-replicating commodity is made, then its value would quickly converge to 0, or equal to the value of the commodities consumed to self-replicate the commodity, assuming that those commodities were not self-replicated themselves. If all commodities were self-replicated, then the value of all commodities would be 0, and, consequently, they would cease to be commodities, since they would have no value. In such a situation, the law of value would be effectively abolished.

[Jimmie Higgins]

the content is tied to the terms which identify it. again, Marx gave clear reasons for using the terms that he did. unless there's some compelling argument for revision on this part (one which i have not seen), i haven't seen any reason to revise the terms or the usage.because language changes and new movements in various places have always led to subtle ways things are talked about. Again, most people think socialism means democratic socialism and communism means state-capitalism or just practically any kind of dictatorship with populist rhetoric and so it's not like clarity isn't needed.




regardless of whether Lenin meant for this to happen, people who take from Lenin have nonetheless distorted it in absurd ways. thus, you get people claiming and misinterpreting Marx, claiming that you can achieve socialism -- the content of which is a stateless, classless society -- within the revolutionary period, where there is still the state; rather than socialism being its own, separate from the dictatorship of the proletariat. but this is the logical leap I'm not understanding because I don't see how the semantic led to this, rather I see the material failure of the Russian revolution leading to later ideological-based language changes in order to justify things.



if we're to take the content of these arguments seriously, then we need to take regardless terms used to identify them seriously and consistently.frankly I think this is a ridged approach that is useless in the real world where in my view it's the content that matters whereas language changes all the time. So these arguments just seem abstract and academic to me.



it's not just a semantic quarrel; it represents a break from Marx's arguments and revolutionary theory. it's like saying "blue" and "red" are just merely terms we use and that it doesn't matter what we use them for; when they're actually specific terms used to identify two fundamentally different colors. yeah, we could say "up" is "down" instead of using the terms how we do now, but should we? what's the justification for doing so? all it does is confuse the discussion.But by insisting on the semantic argument, you are obfuscating and downplaying the political argument. I still don't even know what your real issue with Warner is because I thought the original argument being made against what he said was about "those who do not work, do not eat".

Like I said, personally i don't see the big deal if someone calls the dop a "transition" or "revolutionary period" or if they call "lower communism" or "socialism" or whatever new terms.


Warner has it under his username that he is a "Dialectical Materialist," which i assume means he's a Stalinist. fitting, since Stalin is a great historical example of distorting Marx and us seeing the consequences of doing that.then it isn't a semantic argument at all, but in presenting it in this way I have no clue what your argument against these ideas is! if someone is, say a Maoist, semantics are different, but this isn't the source or fundamental issue with their politics. The problem I have with state-capitalists has noting to do with how they labeled things, but with the class nature of those countries. All sorts of semantic and theorhetical distortions came out of that, but these were not the "cause" of a different political understanding.

[Blake's Baby]

Yeah, they are. Stalinists (including Maoists) really think that state-capitalist hell-holes are a step towards 'communism', because they think that state-capitalist hell-holes are somehow 'socialist', which they don't see as being the same as 'communist' but a stage towards it. That's a confusion of categories, compounded by semantic confusion, which leads to political... shit.

[Creative Destruction]

because language changes and new movements in various places have always led to subtle ways things are talked about. Again, most people think socialism means democratic socialism and communism means state-capitalism or just practically any kind of dictatorship with populist rhetoric and so it's not like clarity isn't needed.

the clarity comes in showing people that they're misusing terms. the entire reason "communism" because pop lingo for "state-capitalism" is due to these rather significant categorical shifts. again, it's not mere semantics and nothing you've said here actually addresses my argument.


but this is the logical leap I'm not understanding because I don't see how the semantic led to this, rather I see the material failure of the Russian revolution leading to later ideological-based language changes in order to justify things.

again, the identifier of the concepts are underlying the terms that Marx chose for these ideas. words have meaning and Marx pinpointed what he meant with the terms that he did. again, misusing them means that people are misusing the concepts that those terms represent.


frankly I think this is a ridged approach that is useless in the real world where in my view it's the content that matters whereas language changes all the time. So these arguments just seem abstract and academic to me.

you keep saying "content matters," and i haven't disagreed. but the terms are part of the content. saying "our language changes" isn't an actual argument for anything said here. it's a cop out to be lazy about the terms you're using.


But by insisting on the semantic argument, you are obfuscating and downplaying the political argument. I still don't even know what your real issue with Warner is because I thought the original argument being made against what he said was about "those who do not work, do not eat".

i'm not obfuscating or downplaying the political argument at all. on the contrary, i think the political argument is extremely important, the arguments of which are represented with specific terms.


Like I said, personally i don't see the big deal if someone calls the dop a "transition" or "revolutionary period" or if they call "lower communism" or "socialism" or whatever new terms.

then it isn't a semantic argument at all, but in presenting it in this way I have no clue what your argument against these ideas is! if someone is, say a Maoist, semantics are different, but this isn't the source or fundamental issue with their politics. The problem I have with state-capitalists has noting to do with how they labeled things, but with the class nature of those countries. All sorts of semantic and theorhetical distortions came out of that, but these were not the "cause" of a different political understanding.

misusing the concepts (and the terms that identify those concepts) is itself a signal that something is politically wrong. if you correct the misconceptions of the terms and the concepts that those terms represent, then you can possibly head off fucking up other shit down the road.

basically, what i get from your argument is that terms don't mean shit and we shouldn't be concerned with getting all the argument right, just some of it. because...?

[RedMaterialist]

I tend to overexplain it and doubt I undersyand it well

Maybe in very simple terms, it occurs when a capitalist pays a worker $10.00 per hour in wages to produce a product or service which is worth $20.00. The capitalist takes the difference as profit.

[RedMaterialist]

But would this not exist in socialism too? Obviously the worker can't get back the full valye of his labor. How does socialism change this?

Absolutely true. It would exist in socialism, in the initial transition from capitalism to communism. Marx talked about it in The Gotha Programme. The exploitation of wage-labor is one of the characteristics of capitalism which will be carried over until the full transition to communism.

[RedMaterialist]

No mention of 'socialism' here either, strangely enough. The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat certainly; 'capitalist society' and 'communist society' certainly, and a period of 'transformation (which is revolutionary)' betweem them. But no 'socialism'.


I think there is a very good reason that Marx never made a distinction between 'socialism' and 'communism.' He never had any concrete, social, historical evidence before him which would suggest there was or should be a distinction.

That evidence did not come along until the Russian Revolution when Lenin began, for the first time, to speak of socialism as the transitional phase of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat,' and that transition being (in Lenin and Trotsky's words) state-capitalism.

[RedMaterialist]

if people take issue with Marx's formulation, then they need to explain why first, instead of just revising and misinterpreting what he said.

You have to revise and re-interpret Marx's formulation as history progresses. Otherwise Marxism becomes a dead language. Marx never predicted that the first successful workers' revolution would be in a backward country like Russia. He did not think the Paris Commune should have revolted, yet when it did, he supported it completely.

Marx would have been the last to say that his formulations were the last word in historical analysis.

[Creative Destruction]

You have to revise and re-interpret Marx's formulation as history progresses.

as "history progresses" or "Marx couldn't see what would happen" isn't an argument here. you have to present a reasoning for why the change in terms is necessary.

[RedMaterialist]

as "history progresses" or "Marx couldn't see what would happen" isn't an argument here. you have to present a reasoning for why the change in terms is necessary.

I certainly agree, however the question is, is there a distinction between socialism and communism? To say that there is no distinction because Marx never stated one is to, in my opinion, treat Marxism as a dogma.

Is socialism different from communism? First of all, socialism requires the existence of a politically repressive state to fight the bourgeoisie. Socialism is also an economic structure on which is based the dictatorship of the proletariat. On the other hand, there is no logical or historical reason that demands socialism be based only on the dictatorship of the proletariat. Many of the demands of Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto have been achieved under the modern welfare state. This is not to say that the welfare state may not end up as an historical dead end. Just that it could be one way of transitioning from capitalism.

So, I guess I see socialism as an economic and political entity.

Communism is a society in which the state, strictly speaking, does not exist, and in which "political economy" does not exist.

[Creative Destruction]

I certainly agree, however the question is, is there a distinction between socialism and communism? To say that there is no distinction because Marx never stated one is to, in my opinion, treat Marxism as a dogma.

I'm not saying that it is so just because Marx said it. I'm saying that he has a particular argument, that I agree with and which makes logical sense; until that argument has been addressed and shown to be unnecessary or illogical, then I think it is still a good argument to have.

So, go ahead. Make the argument. I haven't seen one made yet, so I'm wide open. If you're going to revise it, you need to state a solid reasoning for doing so.


Is socialism different from communism? First of all, socialism requires the existence of a politically repressive state to fight the bourgeoisie.

No, socialism doesn't require this because socialism is a stateless, classless society. The politically "repressive state" is the dictatorship of the proletariat.


Socialism is also an economic structure on which is based the dictatorship of the proletariat.

No, socialism has dispensed with the law of value, the class system, thus the state, thus capitalism. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the process of doing all that. Until that is done, then there is no socialism.


On the other hand, there is no logical or historical reason that demands socialism be based only on the dictatorship of the proletariat. Many of the demands of Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto have been achieved under the modern welfare state. This is not to say that the welfare state may not end up as an historical dead end. Just that it could be one way of transitioning from capitalism.

*sigh*

[RedMaterialist]

i was just reading over the Communist Manifesto and was surprised to see Marx and Engels discussing in fairly great detail the differences between the various types of socialsm and communism. There are the conservative, bourgeois socialists, the reactionary socialists, petty bourgeois socialists, and the critical utopian socialists and then the communists. Finally Marx and Engels declare that the Communists always take the side of the workers, but that they will work with any party, even the socialists if that advances the cause of the workers.

The Title of the most famous revolutionary publication in history is the "Communist Manifesto," not the Socialist/ Social Democracy/Communist Manifesto.

Marx even cites Proudhon as one of the bourgeois socialists.

Without further study into it I would say that Marx is making some definite distinctions between socialism and communism.

[Creative Destruction]

Absolutely true. It would exist in socialism, in the initial transition from capitalism to communism. Marx talked about it in The Gotha Programme. The exploitation of wage-labor is one of the characteristics of capitalism which will be carried over until the full transition to communism.

What?! No, this is completely misinterpreting what his argument was in CotGP. This is your own argument. The "initial transition" (he calls it a transformation, not a transition, which are different actions.) The "exploitation of wage-labor" is not something that is carried over "until the full transition to communism." Exploitation and alienation are replaced, in the first phase of socialism (or communism), with a voucher system, for which the contribution of labor is returned in proportion to the worker. That is not at all what exploitation is under capitalism.

[Creative Destruction]

i was just reading over the Communist Manifesto and was surprised to see Marx and Engels discussing in fairly great detail the differences between the various types of socialsm and communism. There are the conservative, bourgeois socialists, the reactionary socialists, petty bourgeois socialists, and the critical utopian socialists and then the communists. Finally Marx and Engels declare that the Communists always take the side of the workers, but that they will work with any party, even the socialists if that advances the cause of the workers.

The Title of the most famous revolutionary publication in history is the "Communist Manifesto," not the Socialist/ Social Democracy/Communist Manifesto.

Marx even cites Proudhon as one of the bourgeois socialists.

Without further study into it I would say that Marx is making some definite distinctions between socialism and communism.

He refers to these things as "vulgar socialism" in the CotGP. With the socialism of Marx and Engels, he makes no distinction between socialism and communism. He specifically calls the dictatorship of the proletariat the revolutionary period. Nowhere does he refer to it as "socialism."

[RedMaterialist]

until that argument has been addressed and shown to be unnecessary or illogical, then I think it is still a good argument to have.

Its a good argument unless historical development forces it to be revised.



No, socialism doesn't require this because socialism is a stateless, classless society. The politically "repressive state" is the dictatorship of the proletariat.



And in that repressive state the economy inherited from the capitlaists must be managed. The state acting on behalf ofthe workers will own the means of production, distribution, consumption, etc., orgainized rationally under the rules of socialist planning and socialist production of use-value.


No, socialism has dispensed with the law of socialist economy.
value, the class system, thus the state, thus capitalism. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the process of doing all that. Until that is done, then there is no socialism.



Well, then, why all the bother about communism?

[RedMaterialist]

If I were to ask you to define socialism and communism what would your definition be?

[RedMaterialist]

What?! No, this is completely misinterpreting what his argument was in CotGP. This is your own argument. The "initial transition" (he calls it a transformation, not a transition, which are different actions.) The "exploitation of wage-labor" is not something that is carried over "until the full transition to communism." Exploitation and alienation are replaced, in the first phase of socialism (or communism), with a voucher system, for which the value of labor is returned in proportion to the worker. That is not at all what exploitation is under capitalism.

It is still exploitation through the use of labor vouchers which are paid for different quality of work, different strength, different skills, etc. Only after this period of socialism is passed through can the age of "from each according to their abilities, and to each according to their needs" arise. That is communism.

[Creative Destruction]

Its a good argument unless historical development forces it to be revised.

Sure, but you have to make the argument and give the reasoning for the revision. You haven't yet. Simply saying "historical development has made it so" is not an argument, which is the only thing you've said, effectively.


And in that repressive state the economy inherited from the capitlaists must be managed. The state acting on behalf ofthe workers will own the means of production, distribution, consumption, etc., orgainized rationally under the rules of socialist planning and socialist production of use-value.

No, it's the process of the proletariat transforming society in order to reach socialist planning and production. That is the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, which is distinct from socialism.


Well, then, why all the bother about communism?

What are you talking about? It's the same thing.

This is what I was talking about with Jimmy Higgins; the misuse of these concepts, and their identifying terms, have only muddied the waters and made for extremely confused politics.

[Creative Destruction]

If I were to ask you to define socialism and communism what would your definition be?

I've already told you, several times.

[Creative Destruction]

It is still exploitation through the use of labor vouchers which are paid for different quality of work, different strength, different skills, etc.

This isn't exploitation, at least not in a Marxist sense. (I don't think in any sense is it exploitation.) Inequality, maybe, but inequality itself is not exploitation. Exploitation is the usurpation of labor value in the form of profits. There is no profit; instead, people are paid in proportion to their contribution. I think you need to go back and read Capital.


Only after this period of socialism is passed through can the age of "from each according to their abilities, and to each according to their needs" arise. That is communism.

The age of from each according to their ability, to each according to their contribution is also communism (which he does not distinguish from socialism; because the defining feature of socialism/communism is the transcendence of capitalism.) He makes that extremely clear in the Critique:


What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

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. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

[RedMaterialist]

I've already told you, several times.

well, could you give me a link?

[Creative Destruction]

well, could you give me a link?

You really can't read the several different times, including in my last post, where I say, explicitly, that they're the same damn thing? What are you, blind?

[RedMaterialist]

You really can't read the several different times, including in my last post, where I say, explicitly, that they're the same damn thing? What are you, blind?

I know you think they are the same. What I wanted was your definition, like in a dictionary , of each word. It would help me immensely to understand you.

[Creative Destruction]

I know you think they are the same. What I wanted was your definition, like in a dictionary , of each word. It would help me immensely to understand you.

If I think they're the same, then they have the same definition. It's a classless, stateless society based on production for use-value and not profit (i.e., the socialist mode of production.) It's a complete transcendence of capitalism; after the revolution, i.e., the dictatorship of the proletariat. Like I've said, I've said this more than several times in this very thread -- probably on this very page.

[RedMaterialist]

Exploitation and alienation are replaced, in the first phase of socialism (or communism), with a voucher system, for which the value of labor is returned in proportion to the worker. That is not at all what exploitation is under capitalism.

The whole point of Marx's Gotha argument on wages is that there will be unequal pay for unequal work. A skilled worker will be paid more than an unskilled one, because the value of labor will still be determined by the cost of production of those two kinds of labor. The surplus value of the two kinds of labor will not be retained by the workers but contributed to a general fund for education, health care, etc. Under communism production of exchange-value will end.

[RedMaterialist]

If I think they're the same, then they have the same definition. It's a classless, stateless society based on production for use-value and not profit (i.e., the socialist mode of production.) It's a complete transcendence of capitalism; after the revolution, i.e., the dictatorship of the proletariat. Like I've said, I've said this more than several times in this very thread -- probably on this very page.

That's the definition of communism. Socialism is the ownership (a concept non-existing in communism) of the means of production by society, centrally managed and controlled by the working class, or rather, now it appears, by the consuming class.

Socialism and communism are two entirely different economic and social forms. There has been a dialectical, historical, and evolutionary development of the meaning of the two forms since the Russian Revolution.

[Creative Destruction]

The whole point of Marx's Gotha argument on wages is that there will be unequal pay for unequal work. A skilled worker will be paid more than an unskilled one, because the value of labor will still be determined by the cost of production of those two kinds of labor. The surplus value of the two kinds of labor will not be retained by the workers but contributed to a general fund for education, health care, etc. Under communism production of exchange-value will end.

There is no surplus value in socialism. That is a capitalist phenomenon. Deductions are made based on social projects which are for social consumption. It's not profit or "surplus value" that is taken by a capitalist or capitalists. You really need to go re-read Capital and the Critique of the Gotha Program, because absolutely nowhere does Marx make an argument -- or even imply an argument -- about labor being exploited under the first phase of communism (it is still "full communism," btw, that phrase is redundant.) Minor inequality and deductions made for collective consumption =/= exploitation, at all. More over, what he argues for is an hour-to-hour compensation system; not one that favors one set of skills over another. What is "valued" is the time that a worker contributes. The inequality comes in when there are people who are able, and do, work more hours than another worker, thus they are entitled to a greater share of the social product based on that metric.

[Creative Destruction]

That's the definition of communism. Socialism is the ownership (a concept non-existing in communism) of the means of production by society, centrally managed and controlled by the working class, or rather, now it appears, by the consuming class.

Socialism and communism are two entirely different economic and social forms. There has been a dialectical, historical, and evolutionary development of the meaning of the two forms since the Russian Revolution.

No, this has been a revision of the argument by Leninists, on which they make no actual basis for doing so.

[RedMaterialist]

No, this has been a revision of the argument by Leninists, on which they make no actual basis for doing so.

Well, I'm in good company with Lenin.

[Creative Destruction]

Well, I'm in good company with Lenin.

You're really not. You're an ideological heir to one of the largest setbacks in the socialist movement. People actually take you at your word that socialism is some state-capitalist shithole, which is something that people who are serious about Marx's actual arguments have to continually correct and fight against, and the fact that these failed revisions persist just represents an incredible hurdle to socialism.

[RedMaterialist]

You're really not. You're an ideological heir to one of the largest setbacks in the socialist movement. People actually take you at your word that socialism is some state-capitalist shithole, which is something that people who are serious about Marx's actual arguments have to continually correct and fight against, and the fact that these failed revisions persist just represents an incredible hurdle to socialism.

So, who since Trotsky and Lenin have restored the true and correct version of Marxism?

[Creative Destruction]

So, who since Trotsky and Lenin have restored the true and correct version of Marxism?

It didn't need "restoration" in the first place.

[Jacob Cliff]

But would the same not happen under socialism? What is the difference between the capitalist appropriating surplus value and society appropriating it? (Not making an argument, but I'd like to be corrected on this)

[Creative Destruction]

But would the same not happen under socialism? What is the difference between the capitalist appropriating surplus value and society appropriating it? (Not making an argument, but I'd like to be corrected on this)

there is no surplus value being extracted, because there is no value other than use-values; and aside from that, the key difference between making deductions and usurping value for profits is that deductions are made for social consumption. we're all a party to the results of the ensuing production, or we're doing it in order to hold people up who can't work themselves. by and large, capitalists can work, but they don't. they make their living off the explicit exploitation of the working class.

[motion denied]

But would the same not happen under socialism? What is the difference between the capitalist appropriating surplus value and society appropriating it? (Not making an argument, but I'd like to be corrected on this)

There's no value production in socialism, what society appropriates is surplus product. Value, as objectified human labour, the social form the products of labour acquire under commodity production, can exist only so long as production is aimed at accumulation of capital mediated by the market; that is, under monopolization of the means of production by a clique, a class.

[Comrade #138672]

But would the same not happen under socialism? What is the difference between the capitalist appropriating surplus value and society appropriating it? (Not making an argument, but I'd like to be corrected on this)As has been more or less said by the comrades before me, the difference is between the capitalist appropriation of surplus-value (or value) and the socialist "appropriation" of use-value (or utility), i.e., the difference between the distribution according to profit motives and the distribution according to society's needs.

Eventually communism will be fully developed, as to require virtually no labor for the most primary needs, but before that labor is still generally necessary to produce. However, the products would not really behave as commodities, due to the lack of a market. Exchange-value is a social relation, which socialism aims to abolish. At first, when the revolution has started, and capitalism is not yet defeated, we cannot immediately abolish value, so we would still have a form of commodity production. Strictly speaking, though, this would be capitalism, but in the setting of a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

So, yes, socialism is fundamentally different.

[RedMaterialist]

But would the same not happen under socialism? What is the difference between the capitalist appropriating surplus value and society appropriating it? (Not making an argument, but I'd like to be corrected on this)

A good point. Surplus value or profit would still be produced by factories, businesses, etc. The profit would be appropriated by the state and redistributed to society for education, housing, health care, etc. Also, a portion would be returned to the workers as wage increases. It will take a long period of time under this scheme for the bourgeois and petit-bourgeois to be suppressed out of existence. Once the proleatariat is the last hegemonic class, the class structure will break down and the state will wither away and die.

I guess the main difference is that the capitalists takes the surplus value while under socialism/dictatorship of proletariat the workers and society take the surplus value.

[Creative Destruction]

there is no surplus value or profit under socialism.

[RedMaterialist]

there is no surplus value or profit under socialism.

Lets say that in 2050 there is a revolution in the u.s. There are gigantic factories, tens of thousands of them, employing workers, all working as wage labor. Also thousands of hospitals, schools, and other business producing goods and services under commodity production.

The surplus value and profit are now being appropriated and taken from these places. The revolution will occupy these businesses and under the authority of the revolution and the workers in these businesses the profit will be approprated by the revolution. these fund will be used for reinvestment in the nationalized businesses, purchasing raw materials, machinery, etc. the bourgeoisie will be hunted down and forced into re-education camps.

After a hundred yrs or so the system will be functioning agains and the wage labor system will be replaced with a new system, possibly labor chits.

[Creative Destruction]

Lets say that in 2050 there is a revolution in the u.s. There are gigantic factories, tens of thousands of them, employing workers, all working as wage labor. Also thousands of hospitals, schools, and other business producing goods and services under commodity production.

The surplus value and profit are now being appropriated and taken from these places. The revolution will occupy these businesses and under the authority of the revolution and the workers in these businesses the profit will be approprated by the revolution. these fund will be used for reinvestment in the nationalized businesses, purchasing raw materials, machinery, etc. the bourgeoisie will be hunted down and forced into re-education camps.

say that if you want; it isn't socialism.

[Blake's Baby]

And thus Jimmie Higgins, a semantic difference leads to massive confusion of categories. On the one hand, rednoise, me, and Marx & Engels, for whom what we know as 'Marxism' is called 'scientific socialism' to distringuish it from 'utopian socialism'. This implies that the socialism of Marx & Engels is real in a way that the other 'socialisms' are not, which to me at least implies that there is no other socialism, because the world is not changed by ideas after all, but people.

On the other hand, you have RedMaterialist, who thinks other people have made a 'ddogma' of Marx, while repeating a dogma others have made of Lenin, and using misinterpretations of Marx to back up their case (redefining the term 'materialist' as we go along).

As I say, it doesn't really matter if now one redefines terms and claims that socialism is the revolutionary dictatorship or the policy of the French Socialist Party or whatever Barak Obama does; the problem comes when one insists that that's the same as what Marx meant. It isn't.

[Red Star Rising]

As I say, it doesn't really matter if now one redefines terms and claims that socialism is the revolutionary dictatorship or the policy of the French Socialist Party or whatever Barak Obama does; the problem comes when one insists that that's the same as what Marx meant. It isn't.

Wouldn't this issue be solved by clearing this up in any publication of Marx's works with a footnote or something? At the end of the day people aren't going to stop calling it Socialism, just like people haven't stopped calling the USSR "Communist". As long as people can distinguish between what a dictatorship off the proletariat is and what its ultimate goal is I don't see why it would matter.

[Creative Destruction]

Wouldn't this issue be solved by clearing this up in any publication of Marx's works with a footnote or something? At the end of the day people aren't going to stop calling it Socialism, just like people haven't stopped calling the USSR "Communist". As long as people can distinguish between what a dictatorship off the proletariat is and what its ultimate goal is I don't see why it would matter.

Should we, then, scuttle the use of "communism," too?

The problem is that these words do mean things. They are identifiers for specific concepts. RedMaterialist (and David Warner previously) here thinks that the dictatorship of the proletariat is socialism, which presents a load of theoretical confusion on his part, as we've seen in this thread. If they want to make these arguments; that's fine, but they're not Marxist arguments. In other words, they're not based on or derived on the actual arguments that Marx made and the terms (including the concepts behind those terms) he used. Since I'm a Marxist, I'm going to continue to use those arguments, the methodology and the terms in the way intended, because they all have specific meanings. I'm going to continue to use those until someone can convince me that they're illogical and presents some sort of argument against them -- an argument which I have not seen and which has not been presented by any Leninist yet.

[RedMaterialist]

Should we, then, scuttle the use of "communism," too?

they're not based on or derived on the actual arguments that Marx made and the terms (including the concepts behind those terms) he used.

The argument is based not solely on Marx's arguments but the historical development of those arguments. It's not possible to understand socialism or communism without analyzing how those concepts changed and evolved during and after WWI and the Russian and Chinese Revolutions. Marx never intended his words to be carved in stone.

After Lenin, Trotsky and the Russian Revolution everything, as they say, changed. History has made more clear the distinctions between socialism and communism. It is becoming more evident that social consciousness is accepting those differences. Practically no one anymore says that socialism and communism are the same thing, except for the rabid, right wing reactionaries in the US. To them Obama is socialist, communist, Nazi, Stalinist, Marxist, Leninist, Maoist, and of course, an Alinskyist.

Socialism is essentially an economic system: the ownership of the means of production by society. The DOP is the political structure which is based on that system. Communism is not an economic system and not a political structure primarily because there is no longer any class antagonism to support the political structure of the state.

What is communism? I don't think we really know yet. It is a classless society, with no state, no economic structure, it is a free association of humans. No production based on exchange; and possibly not even based on use-value. Production of the means of existence will probably be by computers and robots. Economic "value" will cease to have any meaning.

[Creative Destruction]

The argument is based not solely on Marx's arguments but the historical development of those arguments. It's not possible to understand socialism or communism without analyzing how those concepts changed and evolved during and after WWI and the Russian and Chinese Revolutions. Marx never intended his words to be carved in stone.

No one is suggesting that they are. What is being suggested is that the analysis has to come first, along with an argument and reasoning for why this revised analysis is necessary. Simply saying "history" does not cut it, which is the only thing you've done so far, including this most recent post. Sorry, doesn't wash. Try again. Try to be convincing instead of relying on Leninist orthodox.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yeah, they are. Stalinists (including Maoists) really think that state-capitalist hell-holes are a step towards 'communism', because they think that state-capitalist hell-holes are somehow 'socialist', which they don't see as being the same as 'communist' but a stage towards it. That's a confusion of categories, compounded by semantic confusion, which leads to political... shit.but imo it's not a confusion of categories, it's a totally different politics which then leads to reshaping terms or using theory in ways that it was not intended. If Stalinists and Maoists called their regimes the dop under capitalism, would that then mean they were actually building towards the first phase of communism? No! Stalinism didn't arise from a substitution of language, it came out of a substitution of various other classes over the proletariat.

I don't think there's really an issue with people calling lower communism "socialism" but there is a Political problem if they think that a command economy under burocrats managing the working class is a dop or will lead to it.

And I'm also not against arguing over language or fighting for an original meaning for a term (though sometimes you have to pick your battles... Democratic-socialists can keep the term idk) but I think making a semantic argument over a political argument isn't that clarifying all the time and can hide a substantive argument under semantic back and forth. Saying, "well this is the schema as marx wrote it" is less important than arguing why butcher shop owners are not the same as prols even if they exist in the same communities and share certain cultural things.

[Blake's Baby]

I agree that the argument isn't entirely semantic; but I'm not prepared to let Stalinists an their ilk appropriate terms for their own ends. I'm a Marxist, and a socialist; I'm not going to let anti-socialists define what 'socialism' is, or what Marxism is, or I may as well agree with Fox News that 'socialism = whatever Barak 'the Marxist' Obama is doing'. It is, to my mind, a pretty similar thing, even down to misinterpreting bits of Marx out of context to 'prove' their point.

[The Intransigent Faction]

While I agree with Blake's Baby about state capitalism, I think David's point that "whatever the worker doesn't get directly, he receives in some other form" in socialism/communism is a good one. Workers who produce for use will not personally appropriate every particular thing they produce, or get back "the full value of their labour" in that sense, but they will not be exploited.

As production will be geared to meeting everyone's needs, however, they will gain things that no 'compensation' in a wage-labour relationship could offer them. Their labour will not be misappropriated by capitalists for private enrichment, but rather each person will produce things used by others (or perform some function) with the mutual understanding that that worker will have access as needed to a pool of resources for 'needs' in a broader sense (be they food, water, shelter, tools for labour, entertainment [which is a 'need' in a very real sense on some level], etc.).

So, while the community at large makes use of what a (small or large) section of the community produces, those producers are not "exploited" in the sense that their products are not misappropriated for enrichment of a capitalist, nor are workers coerced into a position of having no say in that production.

If the implication of the idea that workers in communist society 'don't receive the full value of their labour' was that somehow exploitation is democratized, this is just wrong.

[Blake's Baby]

Oh, I agree it's not 'exploitation'. It was redmaterialist that was arguing it was.

But the counter-argument ('no you're wrong the workers will get everything') is wrong as well.

Society will get everything. Everyone will be contributing to deciding how and what. Everyone (to the best of their ability, or to the limits of necessity, or whatever) will be contributing to actually doing it. That isn't exploitation. But nor is it people who work in the wheelchair factory taking home wheelchairs they don't need while people who do need them can't have them because they didn't work for them.