How come there is no 'state' in communism?

[S. Caserio]

Since the proletarian state and dictatorship doesn't necessarily mean a Leninist centralized state. What really does state then mean except armed revolutionary defense?

Capitalist aggressors would be active for a very long time after the socialist revolutions, therefore I think the absence of the "state" would be kind of unprobable.

Therefore, I have issues spotting any major difference between socialism and communism. Communism is a never to be reached goal. Socialism is anything claiming to have communism, or socialism, as its goal.

[Tim Cornelis]

its*

What is "very long" and why would they be?

[Q]

Socialism, or the "lower phase of communism"*, is merely a transition from the old capitalist society to the new (higher) communist society. It is where the laws of the market are gradually replaced with the laws of planning. Gradually because while we can expropriate those means of production which capitalism already socialised for us right from the bat, we can't fully socialise all of society overnight. For a period, there will remain a layer of people with monopolies on skills and knowledge (administrators, lawyers, accountants, etc) which can only be assimilated into the proletariat proper layer by layer. Also, the non-socialised means of production, owned and run by the petty bourgeoisie, can't be collectivised either overnight.

In this period then there will remain a class struggle, albeit one with the proletariat in political reigns of things. In the core capitalist countries, where the proletariat make up of the majority of society, this can be done by introducing democracy (despite the claims by politicians, we don't actually have a democracy in the West today. It is more accurately described as an oligarchy). In a state society, you need an apparatus to keep the ruling class in a ruling position. In the "dictatorship of the proletariat" this means that we need institutional guarantees that democracy, once founded, will remain. This is the definition of a "state" that Marxists use.

When all knowledge and skills are socialised, when we genuinely live in a society of free producers that can live "according to ability and take on need", when we no longer require institutions to protect democratic rule but administration has collapsed into society itself, we have reached (the higher phase of) communism.

* Please note that "socialism" used in a way to describe "the lower phase of communism", was introduced in the Second International. Marx and Engels used "socialism" and "communism" interchangeably. So "socialism" for Marx would, like communism, have a "lower" and a "higher" phase. This is a known point of controversy on Revleft.

[Armchair Partisan]

Communism is a never to be reached goal. Socialism is anything claiming to have communism, or socialism, as it's goal.

The first sentence is not true. If communism was 'never to be reached', we would not support it - being social democrats would be far less trouble if we can't win the class war anyway. Obviously we cannot simply arrange communism to arrive on a specified date and time, but obviously the point of a revolution is to eventually reach it, no?

The second sentence is even less true, although for logical reasons this time. You cannot define socialism with itself.


Capitalist aggressors would be active for a very long time after the socialist revolutions, therefore I think the absence of the "state" would be kind of unprobable.

Yes, the non-anarchist parts of the revolutionary left do support the idea of the workers' state to varying degrees. On the other hand, as Tim asked, what is this "very long time"? If you suspect something about the revolution that we don't, please share with us. As far as I'm concerned, after all the means of production have been collectivized successfully, internal resistance should drop to a reasonably low level within a generation, provided socialism does end up working out.

[Tim Cornelis]

Socialism, or the "lower phase of communism"*, is merely a transition from the old capitalist society to the new (higher) communist society. It is where the laws of the market are gradually replaced with the laws of planning. Gradually because while we can expropriate those means of production which capitalism already socialised for us right from the bat, we can't fully socialise all of society overnight. For a period, there will remain a layer of people with monopolies on skills and knowledge (administrators, lawyers, accountants, etc) which can only be assimilated into the proletariat proper layer by layer. Also, the non-socialised means of production, owned and run by the petty bourgeoisie, can't be collectivised either overnight..

The first phase of communism (it's not referred to as "lower phase" by Marx at least by the way) has markets, and lawyers, a proletariat, and petty bourgeoisie, and class struggle? You conflate the dictatorship of the proletariat and the first phase of communism. DOTP > first phase of communism > a higher phase of communism. This conflation usually originates from Maoists.

It is during the revolution, spanning multiple years, that the means of production are expropriated, all of it. The period of the social revolution is synonymous with the revolutionary dictatorship. And so it is during the revolution that class struggle comes to an end, the petty bourgeoisie will have been expropriated, and the markets will have disappeared because production will be directly social. In the social revolution, society is reconstructed, and the counter-revolution beaten. The first phase of communism begins, where the social revolution and its dictatorship ends. At this point in time, we will have a classless, moneyless, stateless society. Also see:

https://www.marxists.org/subject/japan/tsushima/labor-certificates.htm

[Q]

(it's not referred to as "lower phase" by Marx at least by the way)
In his Critique of the Gotha Programme (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm) Marx specifically mentions a "higher phase of communism", which presumes that there has to be a "lower phase" as well. Anyway, calling it "first" or "lower" is pretty irrelevant.


The first phase of communism has markets, and lawyers, a proletariat, and petty bourgeoisie, and class struggle? You conflate the dictatorship of the proletariat and the first phase of communism. DOTP > first phase of communism > a higher phase of communism. This conflation usually originates from Maoists.

It is during the revolution, spanning multiple years, that the means of production are expropriated, all of it. The period of the social revolution is synonymous with the revolutionary dictatorship. And so it is during the revolution that class struggle comes to an end, the petty bourgeoisie will have been expropriated, and the markets will have disappeared because production will be directly social. In the social revolution, society is reconstructed, and the counter-revolution beaten. The first phase of communism begins, where the social revolution and its dictatorship ends. At this point in time, we will have a classless, moneyless, stateless society. Also see:

https://www.marxists.org/subject/japan/tsushima/labor-certificates.htmThis doesn't stem from Maoism at all. Most people think this definition of "socialism" stems from Lenin, but really it originates from the Second International.

Anyway, the three-phase-scheme you are adhering to (revolutionary dictatorship -> first phase -> second phase) makes little sense to me. From capitalism to ("full") communism, you need an obvious transition, this is what I described in my previous post. Somehow, you make a distinction between "first" and "second" phase communism (what is the difference? I have no idea, since both phases in your scheme are stateless and classless already) and you seem to think that the "revolutionary dictatorship" is actually on the same speaking terms to capitalism and communism.

I argue that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" (a term which Marx and Engels only used very sparsely and only in specific polemics) is actually not on the same level as capitalism and communism. As I argued before (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=18996) they represent completely different dimensions of society (note: I happen to agree with much of comrade Sanpal's amendments to my original display, see the blogpost for my notes on it). For further elaboration I refer to Macnair's 2010 piece (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/823/socialism-is-a-form-of-class-struggle/) where he describes socialism (something he uses interchangeably for the DotP) as a society of class struggle. Since I happen to agree with his depiction, I'll not repeat it here.

I will read your linked piece on my vacation. I'm unfamiliar with Tsushima.

[Dave B]

There can be no doubt that future society will be built on an entirely different basis.
page 336
Future society will be socialist society. This means primarily, that there will be no classes in that society; there will be neither capitalists nor proletarians and, con sequently, there will be no exploitation. In that society there will be only workers engaged in collective labour.
Future society will be socialist society. This means also that, with the abolition of exploitation commodity production and buying and selling will also be abolished and, therefore, there will be no room for buyers and sellers of labour power, for employers and employed -- there will be only free workers.
Future society will be socialist society. This means, lastly, that in that society the abolition of wage-labour will be accompanied by the complete abolition of the private ownership of the instruments and means of production; there will be neither poor proletarians nor rich capitalists -- there will be only workers who collectively own all the land and minerals, all the forests, all the factories and mills, all the railways, etc.
As you see, the main purpose of production in the future will be to satisfy the needs of society and not to produce goods for sale in order to increase the profits of the capitalists. Where there will be no room for commodity production, struggle for profits, etc.
It is also clear that future production will be socialistically organised, highly developed production, which will take into account the needs of society and will produce as much as society needs. Here there will be no room whether for scattered production, competition, crises, or unemployment.
Where there are no classes, where there are neither rich nor poor, there is no need for a state, there is no


page 337
need either for political power, which oppresses the poor and protects the rich. Consequently, in socialist society there will be no need for the existence of political power.
That is why Karl Marx said as far back as 1846:
"The working class in the course of its development Will substitute for the old bourgeois society an association which will exclude classes and their antagonism, and there will be no more political power properly so-called . . . " (see The Poverty of Philosophy).[89 (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/AS07.html#en89)]
That is why Engels said in 1884:
"The state, then, has not existed from all eternity. There have been societies that did without it, that had no conception of the state and state power. At a certain stage of economic development, which was necessarily bound up with the cleavage of society into classes, the state became a necessity. . . . We are now rapidly approaching a stage in the development of production at which the existence of these classes not only will have ceased to be a necessity, but will become a positive hindrance to production. They will fall as inevitably as they arose at an earlier stage. Along with them the state will inevitably fall. The society that will organise production on the basis of a free and equal association of the producers will put the whole machinery of state where it will then belong: into the Museum of Antiquities, by the side of the spinning wheel and the bronze axe" (see The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State).[90 (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/AS07.html#en90)]
At the same time, it is self-evident that for the purpose of administering public affairs there will have to be in socialist society, in addition to local offices which
page 338
will collect all sorts of information, a central statistical bureau, which will collect information about the needs of the whole of society, and then distribute the various kinds of work among the working people accordingly. It will also be necessary to hold conferences, and particularly congresses, the decisions of which will certainly be binding upon the comrades in the minority until the next congress is held.
Lastly, it is obvious that free and comradely labour should result in an equally comradely, and complete, satisfaction of all needs in the future socialist society This means that if future society demands from each of its members as much labour as he can perform, it, in its turn, must provide each member with all the products he needs. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! -- such is the basis upon which the future collectivist system must be created. It goes without saying that in the first stage of socialism, when elements who have not yet grown accustomed to work are being drawn into the new way of life, when the productive forces also will not yet have been sufficiently developed and there will still be "dirty" and "clean" work to do, the application of the principle: "to each according to his needs," will undoubtelly be greatly hindered and, as a consequence, society will be obliged temporarily to take some other path, a middle path. But it is also clear that when future society runs into its groove, when the survivals of capitalism will have been eradicated, the only principle that will conform to socialist society will be the one pointed out above.
That is why Marx said in 1875:


page 339
"In a higher phase of communist (i.e., socialist) society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labour, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labour, has vanished; after labour has become not only a means of livelihood but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual . . . only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois law be crossed in iis entirety and society inscribe on its banners: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'" (see Critique of the Gotha Programme (http://www.marx2mao.com/M&E/CGP75.html)).[91 (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/AS07.html#en91)].
Such, in general, is the picture of future socialist society according to the theory of Marx.
This is all very well. But is the achievement of socialism conceivable? Can we assume that man will rid himself of his "savage habits"?
Or again: if everybody receives according to his needs, can we assume that the level of the productive forces of socialist society will be adequate for this?
Socialist society presupposes an adequate development of productive forces and socialist consciousness among men, their socialist enlightenment. At the present time the development of productive forces is hindered by the existence of capitalist property, but if we bear in mind that this capitalist property will not exist in future society, it is self-evident that the productive forces will increase tenfold. Nor must it be forgotten that in future society the hundreds of thousands of present-day parasites, and also the unemployed, will set to work and augment the ranks of the working people; and this will greatly stimulate the development of the
page 340




http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/AS07.html#c3

[DOOM]

Since the proletarian state and dictatorship doesn't necessarily mean a Leninist centralized state. What really does state then mean except armed revolutionary defense?

Some Marxists believe the working class should take over the state apparatus and lead the class through the revolutionary process, which wouldn't just entail defending the revolution against reactionary forces, it would also entail the socialisation of the means of productions. Now this is probably a pretty complicated task, some form of organising would certainly be helpful.


Capitalist aggressors would be active for a very long time after the socialist revolutions, therefore I think the absence of the "state" would be kind of unprobable.

The revolutionary state is nothing more than a vestige of capitalism. It doesn't exist because of reactionary forces acting against the revolution, it exists because it was specific to capitalism. The general consensus in marxist theory is that the state is a tool for class domination and managing the valorisation of value.
Thererefore, no capitalism -> no state.


Therefore, I have issues spotting any major difference between socialism and communism. Communism is a never to be reached goal. Socialism is anything claiming to have communism, or socialism, as it's goal.

I'm assuming that by saying socialism you mean some form of state-capitalism. Now the difference between such a form of capitalism and socialism/communism wouldn't be merely quantitative, it would be qualitative. You can't measure the degree to which communism has been established, because communism entails the change of social relations.

[Tim Cornelis]

In his Critique of the Gotha Programme (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm) Marx specifically mentions a "higher phase of communism", which presumes that there has to be a "lower phase" as well. Anyway, calling it "first" or "lower" is pretty irrelevant.

Marx counter-poses "a higher phase" with "the first phase". I'll explain why it's relevant below.


This doesn't stem from Maoism at all. Most people think this definition of "socialism" stems from Lenin, but really it originates from the Second International.

What originates from the Second International is calling the first phase of communism socialism, and a higher phase of communism communism. What originates from Maoism is positing that the dictatorship of the proletariat and the first phase of communism are the same phase, and both are called socialist.


Anyway, the three-phase-scheme you are adhering to (revolutionary dictatorship -> first phase -> second phase) makes little sense to me.

It's 'unfortunately' the only accurate one, and in my view above discussion.


From capitalism to ("full") communism, you need an obvious transition, this is what I described in my previous post. Somehow, you make a distinction between "first" and "second" phase communism (what is the difference? I have no idea, since both phases in your scheme are stateless and classless already)

The difference is the degree of material abundance, and, following from this, the degree to which the total product is distributed according to labour contribution or needs. And there is no "first" and "second" phase in communism. This is the problem with "the lower" and "the higher" phase categorisation. Marx speaks of "the first" phase of communism. The, because there is only one phase that is first. There cannot be two first phases, but there can be more than one higher phases, as they become successively more advanced they are "higher" than the previous one. "A higher", a, because there's no distinct, exclusively second phase. As Marx explains in his critique of the Gotha program, communism is in continuous internal development.

So we begin with the first phase, in this phase of communism, which is stateless, classless, moneyless, labour certificates are used to divide up the total product, with probably the exception of basic social services (healthcare, education). Then, as productive technology continues to develop, basic foodstuffs will be made freely available, and then furniture, and so forth. It is a gradual, continuous process with no distinct, qualitatively different phases. No "first" phase counter-posed to a "second".

For there to be a higher phase, there has to be a lower phase. But a phase where furniture is freely available according to needs, but not electronics, is a lower phase than one where both are freely available according to needs, but it is a higher phase than a phase where no consumer goods are freely available at all (which will be the first phase). So by speaking of "the lower phase" and "the higher phase" of communism you give rise to a misrepresentation of what communism will be like (namely two rigidly distinct qualitatively different phases), which can lead to misconceptions that communism and markets are compatible, as you demonstrate.

Marx's use of "a" in "a higher phase" is far more precise and casual than the rigid 'stagist' interpretation that later Marxists gave to it. Marx is describing "a higher phase" not "the higher phase", and gives an example of a higher phase where consumer goods are freely available. There is no one "higher phase", each phase where more consumer goods become freely available is higher than the last, and Marx gives an example of a higher phase where most/all consumer goods are freely available.


and you seem to think that the "revolutionary dictatorship" is actually on the same speaking terms to capitalism and communism.

I'm not sure what you mean. Marx clearly states "the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat lies between capitalism and communism", and I think he also calls it a "political transition period" or something to that extent -- thus not at the same level (mode of production) as capitalism and communism. The DOTP originates in capitalism, inherits capitalism, negates capitalism and as this negation completes it withers away proportionally to the negation of capitalism, inaugurating communism, its first phase. He says this in his critique of the Gotha program (which I cannot load at this moment), where he describes communism as the first phase and a higher phase. In other words, the dictatorship of the proletariat does not survive into communism. The revolutionary dictatorship harmonises the means of production, property relations, and means of appropriation, socialising all. Consequently, the capitalist class is destroyed by the DOTP, and all production becomes directly social. Therefore, it is a classless society (the capitalist class having been destroyed), moneyless (production being directly social), and stateless (no contending classes).

I'm pretty sure Marx quite literally says that labour will be directly social in the first phase of communism, but marxists.org wont load the critique of the Gotha program at this moment.



I argue that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" (a term which Marx and Engels only used very sparsely and only in specific polemics) is actually not on the same level as capitalism and communism. As I argued before (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=18996) they represent completely different dimensions of society (note: I happen to agree with much of comrade Sanpal's amendments to my original display, see the blogpost for my notes on it). For further elaboration I refer to Macnair's 2010 piece (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/823/socialism-is-a-form-of-class-struggle/) where he describes socialism (something he uses interchangeably for the DotP) as a society of class struggle. Since I happen to agree with his depiction, I'll not repeat it here.

I will read your linked piece on my vacation. I'm unfamiliar with Tsushima.

I will check it out but I'm guessing it's going to have a "doorreken fout" (by calculation? -- couldn't find an English equivalent so quickly) based on the same misinterpretation of the phases of communism. And the more steps taken that originates the more doorreken fouten will be compounded, ultimately leading to a gross caricature of communism, where some obscure Stalinist cult can claim that contemporary China is socialist. It gives ideological ammunition to Stalinists.

[Q]

Just one short point of clarification, because I think we made our points here and I don't see either of us being switched to the other side's point of view anytime soon:


So by speaking of "the lower phase" and "the higher phase" of communism you give rise to a misrepresentation of what communism will be like (namely two rigidly distinct qualitatively different phases), which can lead to misconceptions that communism and markets are compatible, as you demonstrate.
I'm not saying socialism is compatible with markets. What I am saying is that, during the transition, there will be two competing economic logics, resulting from the fact that we are unable to directly socialise all aspects of social life. The contradiction between the laws of value and the laws of planning is at the core of the class struggle during the transition.

But really, you should be joining our reading group more often and contribute to the discussion more often. You clearly have something to say!

[RedMaterialist]

Since the proletarian state and dictatorship doesn't necessarily mean a Leninist centralized state. What really does state then mean except armed revolutionary defense?

Capitalist aggressors would be active for a very long time after the socialist revolutions, therefore I think the absence of the "state" would be kind of unprobable.

Therefore, I have issues spotting any major difference between socialism and communism. Communism is a never to be reached goal. Socialism is anything claiming to have communism, or socialism, as its goal.

A state exists for one purpose only: the suppression and domination of one class by another. The proletarian dictatorship exists to suppress and ultimately eliminate the capitalist classes. Once only one class is left, the working class, then there will no longer be any basis for the existence of a "state," and the proletarian state will wither away and die, leaving only the necessity of an "administration of things."

Socialism, in this view, is a transition from capitalism to communism.

[RedWorker]

* Please note that "socialism" used in a way to describe "the lower phase of communism", was introduced in the Second International. Marx and Engels used "socialism" and "communism" interchangeably. So "socialism" for Marx would, like communism, have a "lower" and a "higher" phase. This is a known point of controversy on Revleft.

They didn't use 'socialism' and 'communism' interchangeably. For them, 'socialism' included a broad set of tendencies such as 'reactionary' socialism, of which they only claimed 'scientific socialism' and 'communism' still included some tendencies which were not theirs. When talking about 'communist society' they meant their concept, but they never referred it by 'socialist society'.

Would you not agree that the usage of 'socialism' to mean 'the lower stage of communism' (regardless of who did it for the first time), was first popularized by Lenin, in e.g. State and the Revolution, and later another kind of 'socialism' was defined by the abuse of definitions by Stalin?

[S. Caserio]

A state exists for one purpose only: the suppression and domination of one class by another. The proletarian dictatorship exists to suppress and ultimately eliminate the capitalist classes. Once only one class is left, the working class, then there will no longer be any basis for the existence of a "state," and the proletarian state will wither away and die, leaving only the necessity of an "administration of things."

Socialism, in this view, is a transition from capitalism to communism.

It's from this view I suggest revolutionary socialism as rather distant from the dictionary communism.

The capitalist class will survive for long after revolutions. It's doubtable that the abolishment of class will occur at the same time internationally.

Capitalist fascist right-wing libertarians will not dissapear in one bang.

I don't think 'administration' is necessary at all.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

It's from this view I suggest revolutionary socialism as rather distant from the dictionary communism.

I don't understand why people think they can gain an understanding of complex terms by using a dictionary. That's not what dictionaries are for.


The capitalist class will survive for long after revolutions. It's doubtable that the abolishment of class will occur at the same time internationally.

The tasks of the revolution are complete when classes have disappeared as commodity production gives way to the scientific planning of production for human need. If there are classes, the revolution is not complete, it's as simple as that. In the transitional period there is a state or - as Lenin puts it - a semi-state. But the transitional period is not socialism.

If you think socialism is something that happens in the remote future, then it might as well not happen at all (as presumably everyone participating in political conversation with you will be dead in the remote future). So what you're really advocating is some sort of system of commodity production overseen by the state and - that's the thing, why would you want something as awful as that?


I don't think 'administration' is necessary at all.

Obviously it's necessary as the various necessities of human life don't produce themselves.


They didn't use 'socialism' and 'communism' interchangeably. For them, 'socialism' included a broad set of tendencies such as 'reactionary' socialism, of which they only claimed 'scientific socialism' and 'communism' still included some tendencies which were not theirs. When talking about 'communist society' they meant their concept, but they never referred it by 'socialist society'.

The "famous" (on RevLeft) classification is found in the Communist Manifesto, when "socialism" had the broad meaning of any movement for social reform. "Communism" was the less reputable relation of socialism, a specifically proletarian movement, for which reason Marx preferred that term. By the time Engels wrote Antiduhring, the situation had changed enough that Engels uses the term "socialism" for the future society:

After all that has been said above, the reader will not be surprised to learn that the exposition of the principal features of socialism given in the preceding part is not at all in accordance with Herr Dühring’s view. On the contrary. He must hurl it into the abyss where lie all the other rejected “bastards of historical and logical fantasy”, “barren conceptions”, “confused and hazy notions” {D. K. G. 498}, etc. To Herr Dühring, socialism in fact is not at all a necessary product of historical development and still less of the grossly material economic conditions of today, directed toward the filling of the stomach exclusively {231}. He's got it all worked out much better. His socialism is a final and ultimate truth;

it is “the natural system of society” {D. Ph. 282}, whose roots are to be found in a “universal principle of justice” {D. C. 282},


and if he cannot avoid taking notice of the existing situation, created by the sinful history of the past, in order to remedy it, this must be regarded rather as a misfortune for the pure principle of justice. Herr Dühring creates his socialism, like everything else, through the medium of his famous two men. Instead of these two puppets playing the part of master and servant, as they did in the past, they perform this once, for a change, the piece on the equality of rights — and the foundations of the Dühringian socialism have been laid.


The people’s school of the future, as one can see, is nothing but a somewhat “ennobled” Prussian grammar school in which Greek and Latin are replaced by a little more pure and applied mathematics and in particular by the elements of the philosophy of reality, and the teaching of German is brought back to Becker, of blessed memory, that is, down to about a fourth-form level. And in fact, now that we have demonstrated Herr Dühring’s mere schoolboy “knowledge” in all the spheres on which he has touched, the reader will “not be able to see at all” why it, or rather, such of it as is left after our preliminary thorough “purging”, should not all and sundry “eventually pass into the ranks of the elementary studies” — inasmuch as in reality it has never left these ranks. True, Herr Dühring has heard something about the combination of work and instruction in socialist society, which is to ensure an all-round technical education as well as a practical foundation for scientific training; and this point, too is therefore brought in, in his usual way, to help the socialitarian scheme {284, 414}. But because, as we have seen, the old division of labour, in its essentials, is to remain undisturbed in the Dühringian production of the future, this technical training at school is deprived of any practical application later on, or any significance for production itself; it has a purpose only within the school: it is to replace gymnastics, which our deep-rooted revolutioniser wants to ignore altogether. He can therefore offer us only a few phrases, as for example,







Would you not agree that the usage of 'socialism' to mean 'the lower stage of communism' (regardless of who did it for the first time), was first popularized by Lenin, in e.g. State and the Revolution,

The "popularisation" consisted of sentences like:

"But when Lassalle, having in view such a social order (usually called socialism, but termed by Marx the first phase of communism), says that this is 'equitable distribution', that this is 'the equal right of all to an equal product of labor', Lassalle is mistaken and Marx exposes the mistake."

And for the remainder of the book, Lenin does not place any emphasis on the fact that the first phase of the communist society was called "socialism" in the context of the rotten Second International. (Lenin himself had something of a distaste for the term, preferring to replace it by the term "communism" whenever applicable, for example criticising the Bela Kun group for calling the Hungarian party "socialist-communist".)

Actual populisers of communist thought such as Preobrazhensky and Bukharin used the terms interchangeably, i.e. in "The ABC of Communism": "Proletarian communism (or proletarian socialism) is a huge cooperative commonwealth."

[Hatshepsut]

Communism is a never to be reached goal.

In connection with Dave B.’s block quote from J.V. Stalin; text linked at
http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/AS07.html

Subordination to the division of labor in capitalism leads to an antithesis between mental and physical labor (p. 339, quoting Marx 1875). In practice, meaning some people do mental labor and others physical. As I understand it, eliminating this antithesis means that everyone will do both kinds of labor.

Before the first states formed, people lived under the condition of primitive communism, where land and other productive resources were held in common and the entire community worked together to make use of the land. Native North Americans before European contact were still relatively close to this mode of existence; they did not have a concept of individual land ownership. If property and labor in common were fact in the past, then they must be possible in the future.

We hear the objection that modern industries are too complex to run communally, and therefore need skilled bureaucrats on top, motivated by pressure from owners who want their stock-values to grow. Every labor team, even primitive, needs a “production lead,” a person who sets the pace as the other follow his or her example. The difference is that, in communism, anyone can play the lead role and it rotates regularly. Tuesday will have one lead; Wednesday another. Nor is the lead rewarded at a higher rate than the other workers. In capitalism, the opposite occurs: permanent manager, who is preferentially recompensed.

If we have a communal system as described above, the further objection of “Jack of All Trades” arises. These skeptics say no one can learn how to weld steel and oversee the loading dock and X-ray welds for soundness. This argument falls apart when we realize it’s not necessary for all to know every job in the plant. A single worker need know only at least one rank-and-file position and at least one overseer position. Since every worker in the production unit oversees on some days and follows an overseer on other days, no subordination to division of labor is effectively present. Or at least there’s much less of it.

I’m not a theorist of communism. But why do its detractors insist we must have perfect communism or else have none at all? That’s false dichotomy—we don’t even have perfect capitalism. In physics there is an ideal gas law for pressure, temperature, and volume. No ideal gasses exist in nature. But many real gasses such as air come close enough to ideal for this law to be applicable to them in practice.