How would the economy be organized under the DotP?

[Jacob Cliff]

If th state owns the means of production, doesn't that just make it capitalism but owned by the state? Is this what Lenin meant by "a bourgeois state without the bourgeoisie?" Or is it state owned enterprises with democratic say by the workers?

Also, does wage labor exist in the dotp, or are wages abolished immediately in favor of something else?

[Creative Destruction]

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm
But when Bakunin says "the result is: guidance of the great majority of the people by a privileged minority", it's an accurate prediction of what would happen in the 20th century.

[ñángara]

Anarchism is the communist practice the proletarian revolutionaries are committed to engage into.

[Pancakes Rühle]

Mode of production under the DOTP will remain capitalist. The DOTP is merely a state which oversees the end of capitalism, and thus it's own end.

I would argue that it would be described as a state capitalism in the sense of a coop. The state consisting of the totality of workers, and thus acting both as exploiter and exploited. A coop does not escape the capitalist system, alienation, etc. Nor will the capitalism that persists when the DOTP is formed.

[Creative Destruction]

But when Bakunin says "the result is: guidance of the great majority of the people by a privileged minority", it's an accurate prediction of what would happen in the 20th century.

Which isn't something that Marx would have agreed with, as he noted in his response.

[BIXX]

Which isn't something that Marx would have agreed with, as he noted in his response.
Whether or not Marx would have agreed with it (and I honestly doubt he would have spoken out against it in the way a lot of folks seem to try and make it seem) is irrelevant. What is relevant is the material reality that stems from his thought.

[Slavic]

Whether or not Marx would have agreed with it (and I honestly doubt he would have spoken out against it in the way a lot of folks seem to try and make it seem) is irrelevant. What is relevant is the material reality that stems from his thought.

Marx's thought didn't cause degeneration of worker's states. Material conditions surrounding the creation and maintenance of said states has caused their degeneration. Equating the failure of past worker's states to socialism as opposed to the reality of the material conditions of the time is foolish.

[G4b3n]

But when Bakunin says "the result is: guidance of the great majority of the people by a privileged minority", it's an accurate prediction of what would happen in the 20th century.

Bakunin argued that a Dotp would resemble bourgeois society. He did not predict Stalinism. He was not a fortune teller. And he didn't view himself as such.

[Creative Destruction]

Whether or not Marx would have agreed with it (and I honestly doubt he would have spoken out against it in the way a lot of folks seem to try and make it seem) is irrelevant. What is relevant is the material reality that stems from his thought.

When his thought is that the entirety of the democratic masses should be in control of the economy in a bottom-up fashion, what makes you think that the Leninist style governance stemmed at all from his thought? Just because they claimed it to be?

eta. Hey, how's reading Marx going?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Bakunin argued that a Dotp would resemble bourgeois society. He did not predict Stalinism. He was not a fortune teller. And he didn't view himself as such.
Bakunin died in 1876, so of course he couldn't know how accurate that statement would be, just as Marx couldn't know. As for not predicting Stalinism, maybe not, but the whole vanguard party concept is based around the "guidance of the great majority of the people by a privileged minority".

[Creative Destruction]

Bakunin died in 1876, so of course he couldn't know how accurate that statement would be, just as Marx couldn't know. As for not predicting Stalinism, maybe not, but the whole vanguard party concept is based around the "guidance of the great majority of the people by a privileged minority".

Okay, but Marx never came up with that or supported the concept of a vanguard party. In fact, he repeatedly attacked Bakunin for calling for anarchy and then turning around and thinking that he needed some sort of Blanquist dictatorial revolutionary organization to see through a revolution. For Marxism, this was a Leninist invention, that Lenin thought be necessary due to "material conditions." It is, in fact, a defining issue that he attacked ortho Marxists and left comms about.

Bakunin didn't call or predict shit. He misread what Marx was saying and responded to it based on that. It was no more and no less. That a mass murdering dictatorship decided to hijack Marx and use his writings as a veil of justification for their awful politics and actions has nothing to do with Marx, much less was it some logical step that the grand master Bakunin saw from what Marx was saying.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Okay, but Marx never came up with that or supported the concept of a vanguard party.
I didn't say he did. Don't put words in my mouth.

[ckaihatsu]

Means of production under the DOTP will remain capitalist.


This isn't my understanding of it -- rather, it's that the resulting *consumption goods* would be left to market-type machinations, while *production goods* (means of mass production) would be collectivized under workers' control.

And, this is merely a hypothetical *incremental* step -- if conditions allowed for better, meaning free-access and direct-distribution, then certainly that would be favored instead.





The DOTP is merely a state which oversees the end of capitalism, and thus it's own end.

I would argue that it would be described as a state capitalism in the sense of a coop. The state consisting of the totality of workers, and thus acting both as exploiter and exploited. A coop does not escape the capitalist system, alienation, etc. Nor will the capitalism that persists when the DOTP is formed.


This part itself is actually a good description.





Bakunin died in 1876, so of course he couldn't know how accurate that statement would be, just as Marx couldn't know. As for not predicting Stalinism, maybe not, but the whole vanguard party concept is based around the "guidance of the great majority of the people by a privileged minority".


To *update* things to current conditions -- since information about struggle-type activities is not confined-to or dependent-on word-of-mouth -- the 'vanguard' today is simply those who are most active around the proletariat's best interests.

To call the vanguard 'a privileged minority' only gives it a false mystique and is simply obscurantism.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Marx's thought didn't cause degeneration of worker's states. Material conditions surrounding the creation and maintenance of said states has caused their degeneration. Equating the failure of past worker's states to socialism as opposed to the reality of the material conditions of the time is foolish.

Yeah but white washing over inefficiencies, failures, corruption, etc. as an unfortunate side effect of the would be system being put ino effect isn't helpful either. We really need to drop the whole old Socialist states were either horrific dictatorships or innocent as a lamb Utopias; both are inaccurate and stupid.

[Creative Destruction]

I didn't say he did. Don't put words in my mouth.

Then what the hell are you replying to? Bakunin said something might happen in the future and, by coincidence of history, something like what he said happened. What does that have to do with Marx or what I posted?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Then what the hell are you replying to? Bakunin said something might happen in the future and, by coincidence of history, something like what he said happened. What does that have to do with Marx or what I posted?
I simply pointed out I thought one thing Bakunin said came to pass. *shrug*

[Pancakes Rühle]

This isn't my understanding of it -- rather, it's that the resulting *consumption goods* would be left to market-type machinations, while *production goods* (means of mass production) would be collectivized under workers' control.I meant MODE. My apologies.

[ckaihatsu]

I meant MODE. My apologies.


[Snide 'gotcha' retort in the spirit of competitiveness and oneupmanship.]


= )

[Collective Reasons]

Okay, but Marx never came up with that or supported the concept of a vanguard party. In fact, he repeatedly attacked Bakunin for calling for anarchy and then turning around and thinking that he needed some sort of Blanquist dictatorial revolutionary organization to see through a revolution.

And that, we might note, was also a misunderstanding, since by the time Marx and Bakunin were sparring the only "dictatorship" Bakunin considered necessary was precisely aimed at making sure the negative work of revolution was not ended prematurely or "controlled."