Clearing the air on Socialism/Communism

[Pancakes Rühle]

I'm not sure how this site is for ideological balance... but I have had a lot of experience on very Stalinist heavy sites. I personally attribute my anti-Stalinist stance to this, as I had an early intro into the world of Stalinist theory and ideas. Not only that, I had access to my grandfather's copy of Capital (vol 1), and talked heavily with him on the subject. He directed me to the right works by Marx, and went on to read a nice few of his, and Engels', writings.

What I noticed as a huge key difference between Marx and Stalin was the stance on the "lower phase of communism" or "socialism". Marx wrote about, and clearly saw, communism as a singular society; moneyless, classless (and thus stateless) with a single mode of production. Both socialism and communism were the same society... the difference being the existence of "bourgeois right" in the beginning (lower phase) of communist society. My understanding is that Lenin was on this page as well, except he used "socialism" to refer just to the lower phase, while Marx used the terms interchangeably.

Stalin, on the other hand claimed that socialism, the lower phase of communist society, was an intermediate mode of production between capitalism and communism. A society where money, classes and a state still exist. He even went as far to claim that the "law of value", seen by Marx as a law of capitalist society (the capitalist mode of production), operated under "socialism".

I just want to ask why Stalinists don't take ownership of the differing theory, and accept that they disagree with Marx. I think that would be a great step toward legitimizing them as a "post-marxist", for lack of a better phrase, current.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

They do take "ownership of the differing theory". The Marxists-Leninists would claim that it was "discovered" that, in fact, the dictatorship of the proletariat is socialism, imagine that. The rest of us would say they came up with that line in desperation, but there you have it.

I don't think that makes them "post-Marxists", though, since "post-Marxism" usually means some kind of horrifyingly obtuse academic guff. It makes them Marxists (well, some of them) who are wrong. And obviously no one today agrees with Marx on absolutely everything. And I don't think the exact "order" of modes and relations of production is such a core part of the Marxist method (e.g. a lot of people would say the supposed Asiatic-despotic mode of production didn't exist; I think they're wrong, but they're not anti-Marxist, which is also how I feel about people who propose some kind of "bureaucratic-collectivist" mode of production).

[motion denied]

As a side topic, you're rocking that name, eh.

[tuwix]

I just want to ask why Stalinists don't take ownership of the differing theory, and accept that they disagree with Marx. I think that would be a great step toward legitimizing them as a "post-marxist", for lack of a better phrase, current.

The fact is that Marx confused a lot in these terms. And I know that I'm saying a blasphemy for many thoughtless Marxists. Not only Stalinists or other Leninists differ socialism from communism, but many anarchists and non-Marxist socialist too. Only for orthodox Marxists communism and socialism means exactly the same.

[Blake's Baby]

I don't think that's true. All of the Anarchists I know think that socialist society is the same as communist society. And I think when you refer to 'orthodox Marxists' you might mean 'classical Marxists', if I remember correctly it's the Kautskyists who are 'orthodox'.

I'll agree that some Anarchists believe there is a 'state socialist' or 'authoritarian socialist' ideology ('statists who think they are socialists', more or less), but that isn't the same as a 'socialist society' - becuse of course Stalinist Russia wasn't 'socialism' either to classical Marxists or to Anarchists.

[Tim Cornelis]

I don't think Marx or Engels have referred, at some point, to a "socialist society". Unfortunately, large swatches of the internet archive was deleted so I can't simply google. But for a fact Marx did not use them interchangeably. Initially, Marx and Engels placed themselves outside the socialist spectrum, identifying three types of socialists: democratic, bourgeois, and reactionary, which as juxtaposed with communism.

This changed somewhat when Engels coined "scientific socialism" for, what appears to have been more literary (consonance?) reasons. Marx commented that the term "was only used in opposition to utopian socialism, which wants to attach the people to new delusions, instead of limiting its science to the knowledge of the social movement made by the people itself".

I have never seen Marx indicate that socialism and communism were the same society. Engel's has made some comments that may be construed in a way that they can refer to the same. Noting that modern socialism is merely a reflex of the proletariat, paralleling the "communism is the movement that" etc.

Also, Marx spoke of the first phase of communist society, not lower.

[Bolshevik800]

I don't think Marx or Engels have referred, at some point, to a "socialist society". Unfortunately, large swatches of the internet archive was deleted so I can't simply google. But for a fact Marx did not use them interchangeably. Initially, Marx and Engels placed themselves outside the socialist spectrum, identifying three types of socialists: democratic, bourgeois, and reactionary, which as juxtaposed with communism.

This changed somewhat when Engels coined "scientific socialism" for, what appears to have been more literary (consonance?) reasons. Marx commented that the term "was only used in opposition to utopian socialism, which wants to attach the people to new delusions, instead of limiting its science to the knowledge of the social movement made by the people itself".

I have never seen Marx indicate that socialism and communism were the same society. Engel's has made some comments that may be construed in a way that they can refer to the same. Noting that modern socialism is merely a reflex of the proletariat, paralleling the "communism is the movement that" etc.

Also, Marx spoke of the first phase of communist society, not lower.

Well you could say like the Soviet and the Bolshevik one party lead by Trotsky the Soviet and the other party the Bolshevik lead by Lenin it took a long time for both to agree on ideogies and party-politics .

[Pancakes Rühle]

I don't think Marx or Engels have referred, at some point, to a "socialist society". Unfortunately, large swatches of the internet archive was deleted so I can't simply google. But for a fact Marx did not use them interchangeably. Initially, Marx and Engels placed themselves outside the socialist spectrum, identifying three types of socialists: democratic, bourgeois, and reactionary, which as juxtaposed with communism.

This changed somewhat when Engels coined "scientific socialism" for, what appears to have been more literary (consonance?) reasons. Marx commented that the term "was only used in opposition to utopian socialism, which wants to attach the people to new delusions, instead of limiting its science to the knowledge of the social movement made by the people itself".

I have never seen Marx indicate that socialism and communism were the same society. Engel's has made some comments that may be construed in a way that they can refer to the same. Noting that modern socialism is merely a reflex of the proletariat, paralleling the "communism is the movement that" etc.

Also, Marx spoke of the first phase of communist society, not lower.

Whenever socialism or communism was discussed by them, the terms in the context of post-capitalist society, were interchangeable. That's why you don't see him explain them as the same society, because of that interchangeable use.

Yes, Marx did speak of the first phase... I'm not sure why that is a big deal to point out and correct "lower".

[Pancakes Rühle]

They do take "ownership of the differing theory". The Marxists-Leninists would claim that it was "discovered" that, in fact, the dictatorship of the proletariat is socialism, imagine that. The rest of us would say they came up with that line in desperation, but there you have it.

I don't think that makes them "post-Marxists", though, since "post-Marxism" usually means some kind of horrifyingly obtuse academic guff. It makes them Marxists (well, some of them) who are wrong. And obviously no one today agrees with Marx on absolutely everything. And I don't think the exact "order" of modes and relations of production is such a core part of the Marxist method (e.g. a lot of people would say the supposed Asiatic-despotic mode of production didn't exist; I think they're wrong, but they're not anti-Marxist, which is also how I feel about people who propose some kind of "bureaucratic-collectivist" mode of production).

They don't own it... they claim it is Marxism, it is Marx that had this idea, and not Stalin.

I think understanding capitalism, and understanding Marx's critique is in fact very important to the "Marxist method". It's quite clear in the ideas of the Stalinists, that their views aren't antithetical to a minor part of Marxs' theory, but a MAJOR part of it.

There is a difference between anti-Marxist and not Marxist.