What would an armed forces look like in socialism?

[HevMet]

By this I mean how would a socialist society defend itself and organize forces to do this, if at all? Would there be a professional military, would it be a militia? Would it be voluntary or some sort of mandatory duty?

[Faust Arp]

Here's what Lenin had to say on the matter.



Democracy is a form of the state, it represents, on the one hand, the organized, systematic use of force against persons; but, on the other hand, it signifies the formal recognition of equality of citizens, the equal right of all to determine the structure of, and to administer, the state. This, in turn, results in the fact that, at a certain stage in the development of democracy, it first welds together the class that wages a revolutionary struggle against capitalism--the proletariat, and enables it to crush, smash to atoms, wipe off the face of the earth the bourgeois, even the republican-bourgeois, state machine, the standing army, the police and the bureaucracy and to substitute for them a more democratic state machine, but a state machine nevertheless, in the shape of armed workers who proceed to form a militia involving the entire population.




The people need a republic in order to educate the masses in the methods of democracy. We need not only representation along democratic lines, but the building of the entire state administration from the bottom up by the masses themselves, their effective participation in all of life’s steps, their active role in the administration. Replacement of the old organs of oppression, the police, the bureaucracy, the standing army, by a universal arming of the people, by a really universal militia, is the only way to guarantee the country a maximum of security against the restoration of the monarchy and to enable it to go forward firmly, systematically and resolutely towards socialism, not by “introducing” it from above, but by raising the vast mass of proletarians and semi-proletarians to the art of state administration, to the use of the whole state power.

Public service through a police standing above the people, through bureaucrats, who are the most faithful servants of the bourgeoisie, and through a standing army under the command of landowners and capitalists—that is the ideal of the bourgeois parliamentary republic, which is out to perpetuate the rule of Capital.

Public service through a really universal people’s militia, composed of men and women, a militia capable partly of replacing the bureaucrats—this, combined with the principle of elective office and displaceability of all public officers, with payment for their work according to proletarian, not “master-class”, bourgeois standards, is the ideal of the working class.




Prevent restoration of the police force! Do not let the local government bodies slip out of your hands! Set up a militia that will really embrace the entire people, be really universal, and be led by the proletariat!—such is the task of the day, such is the slogan of the moment which equally conforms with the properly understood interests of furthering the class struggle, furthering the revolutionary movement, and the democratic instinct of every worker, of every peasant, of every exploited toiler who cannot help hating the policemen, the rural police patrols, the village constables, the command of landlords and capitalists over armed men with power over the people.

What kind of police force do they need, the Guchkovs and Milyukovs, the landlords and capitalists? The same kind as existed under the tsarist monarchy. After the briefest revolutionary periods all the bourgeois and bourgeois-democratic republics in the world set up or restored precisely such a police force, a special organisation of armed men subordinate to the bourgeoisie in one way or another, separate from and opposed to the people.

What kind of militia do we need, the proletariat, all the toiling people? A genuine people’s militia, i.e., one that, first, consists of the entire population, of all adult citizens of both sexes; and, second, one that combines the functions of a people’s army with police functions, with the functions of the chief and fundamental organ of public order and public administration.

[Blake's Baby]

'Defend itself' from whom, do you think?

[Guardia Rossa]

'Defend itself' from whom, do you think?

Well, the Russian revolution was in a prime position and time to be completely wrecked by bourgeois powers. We should thank the Great War, as terrible as it was, for the initial survival of the RSFSR, only Japan did invade to attempt conquering lots of land and Germany of course trying to hold onto their puppets, before they collapsed.

Not to forged the Czechoslovak legions, that took the Trans-Siberian Railroad and disrupted bolshevik presence in Siberia, the Anglo/Frenk/American intervention to "secure" Arkhangelsk materiel from the bolcheviks, and the repeating attempts to invade Siberia and Vladivostok from a lot of powers.

Oh, Poland annexing parts of today's Bielorussia and Ukraine, British troops in the Caucasus, British supporting militias in Baltics.

[Comrade #138672]

Well, the Russian revolution was in a prime position and time to be completely wrecked by bourgeois powers.But the question is about armed forces in a communist society (post-capitalism). If bourgeois powers still exist in the world (and are the majority), then there is no communism yet.

[Guardia Rossa]

But the question is about armed forces in a communist society (post-capitalism). If bourgeois powers still exist in the world (and are the majority), then there is no communism yet.

The question is not explicitly saying a "World Communist Society" but a "Socialist Society" that needs to "Defend Itself", my guess is from the bourgeois powers.

And also, I have chosen to interpret Blake's Baby comment as an answer to Faust Apt.

Of course, there will be no need for it in a "full", worldwide, communist society. Unless someone here believe in aliens or spaghetti Gods.

[BIXX]

According to most folks here you'd need a militia/police/whatever to protect society from people inside of it.

[Guardia Rossa]

According to most folks here you'd need a militia/police/whatever to protect society from people inside of it.

Well, apart from the Faust Arp and the OP, I don't think anyone here would support a police. You know that. You also know that the OP might support a socialist police, but he is new blood, I'd probably support it some months ago too. Faust Arp, if he is a Stalinist, might, but I doubt it too.

The OP cited "Armed Forces" which means an Army or militia for DEFENCE of the socialist society (Which is not global in this case, as the OP says quite explicitly it's a society threatened by outside forces). You change his (and mine's) words to "Socialist Police" and say it's role is to "Protect Society from the people inside of it" claiming that we defend a class society.

However, only Lenin does say the word "Police" and the OP is undefined, while I'm not Leninist. You could claim Faust Arp defends a police because he quotes Lenin, but I don't usually defend everything I quote.

A people's militia composed of "every able human" cannot serve as a police neither can it oppress itself, can it?



You can't actually claim anyone here defends a "Socialist Police" and therefore a "Class Society"

So, get your edgyness and carry it to some other thread, if you may.

[Црвена]

Well, apart from the Faust Arp and the OP, I don't think anyone here would support a police. You know that.

You know that the OP might support a socialist police, but he is new blood, I'd probably support it some months ago too.

Faust Arp, if he is a Stalinist, might, but I doubt it too.

The OP cited "Armed Forces" which means an Army or militia for DEFENCE of the socialist society(Which is not global, as the OP says quite explicitly it's a threatened society). You change his (and mine's) words to "Socialist Police" and say it's role is to "Protect Society from the people inside of it" claiming that we defend a class society.

Socialism isn't global? So you think socialism in one country (or a few countries) can exist?


, only Lenin does say the word "Police" and the OP is undefined, while I'm not Leninist. You could claim Faust Arp defends a police because he quotes Lenin, but I don't usually defend everything I quote.

So, get your edgyness and carry it to some other thread, if you may.

I don't think BIXX was being "edgy." Quite a few people on here have said in past threads that laws would exist in socialism (which I used to believe until an enlightened soul on here talked me out of it) which implies that a body would exist to enforce these laws. This body is a police force, regardless of whether it wants to call itself a People's Militia or the Society for Saving Souls or whatever.

[Blake's Baby]

The question is not explicitly saying a "World Communist Society" but a "Socialist Society" that needs to "Defend Itself", my guess is from the bourgeois powers.

And also, I have chosen to interpret Blake's Baby comment as an answer to Faust Apt.

Of course, there will be no need for it in a "full", worldwide, communist society. Unless someone here believe in aliens or spaghetti Gods.

Well, I wasn't 'interpreting', I was trying to understand what HevMet (the OP) was asking.

If there are bourgeois powers there is no 'socialist society' in my estimation, as socialism is a worldwide classless communal society. So, I'm trying to determine if HevMet means 'in a revolutionary dictatorship', or if HevMet thinks that a socialist society needs a professional or conscripted army to defend itself from internal enemies (or aliens).

[BIXX]

Well, apart from the Faust Arp and the OP, I don't think anyone here would support a police. You know that. You also know that the OP might support a socialist police, but he is new blood, I'd probably support it some months ago too. Faust Arp, if he is a Stalinist, might, but I doubt it too.

The OP cited "Armed Forces" which means an Army or militia for DEFENCE of the socialist society (Which is not global in this case, as the OP says quite explicitly it's a society threatened by outside forces). You change his (and mine's) words to "Socialist Police" and say it's role is to "Protect Society from the people inside of it" claiming that we defend a class society.

However, only Lenin does say the word "Police" and the OP is undefined, while I'm not Leninist. You could claim Faust Arp defends a police because he quotes Lenin, but I don't usually defend everything I quote.

A people's militia composed of "every able human" cannot serve as a police neither can it oppress itself, can it?



You can't actually claim anyone here defends a "Socialist Police" and therefore a "Class Society"

So, get your edgyness and carry it to some other thread, if you may.

The defense of a socialist society entails what exactly? Are there internal threats to the society? Why or why not? What are they?

What threats could exist to a socialist society?

[Antiochus]

The defense of a socialist society entails what exactly? Are there internal threats to the society? Why or why not? What are they?

What threats could exist to a socialist society?

Thats not our position. We never said that. Can't you read?

[BIXX]

I wasn't critiquing a position antiochus, or taking one.

[BIXX]

Also I think this constant dragging of drama from other threads into whatever thread I'm in is somewhat inappropriate (many users do this, not just you antiochus).

[Faust Arp]

Well, apart from the Faust Arp and the OP, I don't think anyone here would support a police. You know that. You also know that the OP might support a socialist police, but he is new blood, I'd probably support it some months ago too. Faust Arp, if he is a Stalinist, might, but I doubt it too.

The OP cited "Armed Forces" which means an Army or militia for DEFENCE of the socialist society (Which is not global in this case, as the OP says quite explicitly it's a society threatened by outside forces). You change his (and mine's) words to "Socialist Police" and say it's role is to "Protect Society from the people inside of it" claiming that we defend a class society.

However, only Lenin does say the word "Police" and the OP is undefined, while I'm not Leninist. You could claim Faust Arp defends a police because he quotes Lenin, but I don't usually defend everything I quote.

A people's militia composed of "every able human" cannot serve as a police neither can it oppress itself, can it?



You can't actually claim anyone here defends a "Socialist Police" and therefore a "Class Society"

So, get your edgyness and carry it to some other thread, if you may.

I'll try to clarify (and also answer BIXX's questions above).

I'm not a Stalinist. If I really had to classify myself as anything more precise than "Leninist", I'd probably call myself some sort of a heterodox Trotskyist, with some leftcom leanings maybe. Definitely not a Stalinist though.

In those quotes I gathered, Lenin himself doesn't use the term "police" except in a negative context. The only possible exception is when he says that the militia should have "police functions", but I'll get around to it.

There definitely shouldn't be a police or military body separate from the working class. The armed working class by itself, organized as a people's militia, should act as the sole protector of the newly established socialist order against external - and yes, internal threats too.

As for external threats, it's absolutely clear that a revolution won't happen at the same time in every single corner of the world. There's a big, big difference between "socialism in one country" (as a matter-of-fact statement that - somewhere out in the world - there is a country which also happens to be socialist) and "Socialism in One Country" (as a theory which denies the unsustainability of having socialism confined to one corner of the world). Foreign capitalist powers will do anything to stop socialism from spreading, and there's no reason why a straight-up military intervention would be excluded. It has happened before.

And speaking of internal ones, it's just as inevitable that they will be there. Unlike communism, socialism is a system of class rule, and it's plainly naive to believe that class struggle somehow halts after the revolution. It doesn't. If anything, it intensifies - both on a global and on a local level - with the utmost difference being that the working class is finally the one holding power somewhere. Counterrevolutionary elements won't just disappear in a puff of smoke, they'll aim to get their power back, probably with external support, and there's no chance that they're gonna be some sort of a pushover which can be ignored without serious consequences. If the bourgeoisie were a bunch of Care Bears, we'd all had been flying red flags in Paris, London and New York for 150 years. The working class will be forced to curb those counterrevolutionary elements if it wants to stay in power, no question about it.

Questioning either of these two aspects means not quite getting one of the key traits of socialism - it's a process. Even though it definitely has its own elements which define it, above all it's a transitional phase between capitalism and communism where some attributes of the former are dying and end up being replaced by the latter. That's the entire point of socialism - it's a purgatory of sorts. It's far from static, as some dogmatists are prone to interpreting it - it'll be the most dynamic period in all of human history. Due to all that, I'm pretty sure that people probably won't even notice when socialism ended and communism began - the latter won't arrive with decrees and grandiose proclamation.

[HevMet]

I'm a woman so it's be nice to refer to me as "she". Also I meant how would a socialist state, revolutionary or otherwise would organize necessary defense, specifically if it would prefer a voluntary or draft based military. I personally think it would serve it better to have the latter.

[Zoop]

It would be voluntary, and it would be directly democratic.

Of course, it would exist during a revolutionary period to repel reactionary forces.

[HevMet]

How do you mean by directly democratic?

[Guardia Rossa]

Socialism isn't global? So you think socialism in one country (or a few countries) can exist?

Well, and socialism will automatically be global? There can be no time where revolution happends in India, Russia, Europe and South America, with other regions still in bourgeois hands, succumbing later?

During this time the bourgeoisie still clings on to North America and Africa, we will live in full peace and love, fuck weapons? This is why Lenin said that there was a need for a socialist militia in a socialist society.

There would be no need, but the OP quite explicitly says that there is a threat, one which can only be the bourgeoisie and/or the bourgeois nations
And I DID say that in a "full", global communist, socialist or whatever society that no army would be needed.


I don't think BIXX was being "edgy." Quite a few people on here have said in past threads that laws would exist in socialism (which I used to believe until an enlightened soul on here talked me out of it) which implies that a body would exist to enforce these laws. This body is a police force, regardless of whether it wants to call itself a People's Militia or the Society for Saving Souls or whatever.

Yes, of course, there are people that think laws (And therefore Police) should exist, but IN THIS THREAD not a single post did support it actively, he could only try and be edgy to get exactly what he got, an angry and quick answer (Eventhough I did edited it three times my writing style is awful even to me, after some hours.)

Still. BIXX's criticism makes no sense insofar as he accuses many comrades of "wanting a Socialist Police" to "defend society against itself" when NOT A SINGLE COMRADE SAID THIS.


Well, I wasn't 'interpreting', I was trying to understand what HevMet (the OP) was asking.

I said I was interpreting your comment as an answer to the other guy so I could comment and defend what Lenin said, to an extent.

If there are bourgeois powers there is no 'socialist society' in my estimation, as socialism is a worldwide classless communal society. So, I'm trying to determine if HevMet means 'in a revolutionary dictatorship', or if HevMet thinks that a socialist society needs a professional or conscripted army to defend itself from internal enemies (or aliens).[/QUOTE]

Well, than, I beg your pardon if 'socialist society' means a worldwide society, in my language it doesn't directly points to this (I do, however, discuss in excess with stalinists, that are right now annoying me with "Stalin is awsome, you are a revisionist idiot" blablabla, they might have infected my words). I said, quite clearly, that I interpreted "Threats" as bourgeoisie or bourgeois nations, and insofar as that the threat are bourgeois nations, a militia is a need.

I do not support "socialist in one country" or blablabla, I support people that do a revolution and don't magically conquer the world in one day maintain armed forces to defend themselves from the bourgeoisie (Or smash them)


The defense of a socialist society entails what exactly? Are there internal threats to the society? Why or why not? What are they? What threats could exist to a socialist society?

Your question is answered in my second post:


The question is not explicitly saying a "World Communist Society" but a "Socialist Society" that needs to "Defend Itself", my guess is from the bourgeois powers.

And I added


Of course, there will be no need for it in a "full", worldwide, communist society. Unless someone here believe in aliens or spaghetti Gods.

So, stop trying to be edgy. You just don't read what others said and shitpost based on your opinions on what they said.

I didn't said I don't do that (I did that with Redworker recently) but that you do it all the fucking time

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Well, and socialism will automatically be global? There can be no time where revolution happends in India, Russia, Europe and South America, with other regions still in bourgeois hands, succumbing later?

What does it mean for the revolution to happen? Are we talking about the bourgeois state being smashed in one region of the globe? Of course that will not happen simultaneously around the planet. But this, by itself, does not produce socialism - it produces a workers' state, a temporary and transitional form that can only advance with the global strengthening of the revolution into socialism, or degenerate if the world revolution is defeated. But for socialism to exist there must first happen a global victory of the revolution.

In the transitional period, there will probably exist workers' militias, but these are not some kind of sacred principle. As the Bolsheviks discovered, leading a demoralised peasant army by principled which had worked for the Red Guard, workers' companies etc. was suicidal.


There's a big, big difference between "socialism in one country" (as a matter-of-fact statement that - somewhere out in the world - there is a country which also happens to be socialist) and "Socialism in One Country" (as a theory which denies the unsustainability of having socialism confined to one corner of the world).

But socialism is a mode of production. Modes of production are historically stable; so if socialism has been achieved (how could it be achieved if the law of value still operates due to ties to the world market?) in one country, then it's sustainable and we can forget about that "world revolution" business.

[HevMet]

I thought workers control and ownership was socialism?

[Guardia Rossa]

What does it mean for the revolution to happen? Are we talking about the bourgeois state being smashed in one region of the globe? Of course that will not happen simultaneously around the planet. But this, by itself, does not produce socialism - it produces a workers' state, a temporary and transitional form that can only advance with the global strengthening of the revolution into socialism, or degenerate if the world revolution is defeated. But for socialism to exist there must first happen a global victory of the revolution.

Well, that is your theory, others which I discuss with (That damned idiot stalinists) say that every single state-capitalist country is socialist and that has influenced my understanding of "Socialist society". If in english there is no such misunderstanding, I beg your pardon for half of my post, based upon my linguistic and marxist terminology knowledge.


In the transitional period, there will probably exist workers' militias, but these are not some kind of sacred principle. As the Bolsheviks discovered, leading a demoralised peasant army by principled which had worked for the Red Guard, workers' companies etc. was suicidal.

This is what I meant. Apparently BIXX thinks that if there is a transitional period, it means that we will automatically enter class society and dictatorship, as if anarchism or whatever the fuck he defends (Or doesn't) would face no such problem.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I thought workers control and ownership was socialism?

Socialism, as the term is generally used here, is the stateless, classless society based on common control of (not "ownership of"; once ownership applies to the entire society it loses all meaning) the means of production and their employment according to a scientific plan to satisfy human need.

So, instead of ownership there is social control and planning, instead of the law of value (which regulates market exchange that underlies capitalism) there is the law of planning (there is no market and no exchange in socialism). The government over men, as Engels puts it, has withered away, and the socialist society is "simply" an association for production, with administrative functions ("administration of things and direction of the processes of production") but no repressive organs.

There are no workers in socialism, either - once we all become workers, that means no one is a worker anymore, since classes depend on society being divided into two or more opposing classes.

[Guardia Rossa]

I thought workers control and ownership was socialism?

Yes, but how that happens? Is the State controlling the means of production worker ownership of the MoP?

Will some distorted form of Titoism or councilism be any better?

This is a question for another thread, which you should start, because everyone will have their opinion and this intermixed with BIXX's neverending edgyness will cause some big confusion

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Well, that is your theory, others which I discuss with (That damned idiot stalinists) say that every single state-capitalist country is socialist and that has influenced my understanding of "Socialist society". If in english there is no such misunderstanding, I beg your pardon for half of my post, based upon my linguistic and marxist terminology knowledge.

It's not a question of English versus Portuguese terminology, since the comrades in LQI would tell you the same thing. The difference is between the Stalinist equation "DotP = socialism" and the Leninist understanding of the problem (upheld also by leftcoms etc.). To say that an isolated country is socialist is to deny the prospect of the world revolution, since apparently we can achieve SioC and call it a day. But the experience of the last century doesn't support this at all.

[HevMet]

Yeah I figure the government will have to mandate workplace democracy just as it mandates political democracy, protects individual rights, defends society from aggression, etc. I doubt anyone nowadays wants the government to own all businesses and firms though, I'm OK with private ownership myself.
I thought a stateless, classless society was communism, not socialism. It's some hypothetical individualist society where superabundance makes laws and collective responsibility irrelevant, communism that is and not socialism.. If people work, yes they are workers. Unless you mean some futurist scenario of robots doing everything which is unlikely.

[Guardia Rossa]

It's not a question of English versus Portuguese terminology, since the comrades in LQI would tell you the same thing. The difference is between the Stalinist equation "DotP = socialism" and the Leninist understanding of the problem (upheld also by leftcoms etc.). To say that an isolated country is socialist is to deny the prospect of the world revolution, since apparently we can achieve SioC and call it a day. But the experience of the last century doesn't support this at all.

Happends that in Brazil everyone and their mother is Stalinist, and this inevitably influences the terminology used by other marxists, and we start to call Socialism what is between capitalism and "Real", worldwide communism.

So from an ideological it becomes a linguistic question.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Yeah I figure the government will have to mandate workplace democracy just as it mandates political democracy, protects individual rights, defends society from aggression, etc.
I thought a stateless, classless society was communism, not socialism. It's some hypothetical individualist society where superabundance makes laws and collective responsibility irrelevant, communism that is and not socialism..

No, for most of us, "socialism" and "communism" are synonyms. Only the Stalinists insist on their equation "DotP = socialism", but that's simply one of the many things the rest of us find objectionable about their politics. And the statelesness of the socialist society is a direct consequence of the Marxist understanding of the state as an organ of class dictatorship - once the means of production are controlled by the entire society, there are no more classes and the material basis for a state does not exist. Communism doesn't mean some kind of hypothetical "superabundance"; this is an impoverished and mechanicistic view.


I doubt anyone nowadays wants the government to own all businesses and firms though, I'm OK with private ownership myself.

Eh... we're not. Our perspective is in fact for the complete socialisation of production, of all private property, and for the abolition of the market.

[BIXX]

Well, and socialism will automatically be global? There can be no time where revolution happends in India, Russia, Europe and South America, with other regions still in bourgeois hands, succumbing later?

During this time the bourgeoisie still clings on to North America and Africa, we will live in full peace and love, fuck weapons? This is why Lenin said that there was a need for a socialist militia in a socialist society.

There would be no need, but the OP quite explicitly says that there is a threat, one which can only be the bourgeoisie and/or the bourgeois nations
And I DID say that in a "full", global communist, socialist or whatever society that no army would be needed.



Yes, of course, there are people that think laws (And therefore Police) should exist, but IN THIS THREAD not a single post did support it actively, he could only try and be edgy to get exactly what he got, an angry and quick answer (Eventhough I did edited it three times my writing style is awful even to me, after some hours.)

Still. BIXX's criticism makes no sense insofar as he accuses many comrades of "wanting a Socialist Police" to "defend society against itself" when NOT A SINGLE COMRADE SAID THIS.



I said I was interpreting your comment as an answer to the other guy so I could comment and defend what Lenin said, to an extent.

If there are bourgeois powers there is no 'socialist society' in my estimation, as socialism is a worldwide classless communal society. So, I'm trying to determine if HevMet means 'in a revolutionary dictatorship', or if HevMet thinks that a socialist society needs a professional or conscripted army to defend itself from internal enemies (or aliens).

Well, than, I beg your pardon if 'socialist society' means a worldwide society, in my language it doesn't directly points to this (I do, however, discuss in excess with stalinists, that are right now annoying me with "Stalin is awsome, you are a revisionist idiot" blablabla, they might have infected my words). I said, quite clearly, that I interpreted "Threats" as bourgeoisie or bourgeois nations, and insofar as that the threat are bourgeois nations, a militia is a need.

I do not support "socialist in one country" or blablabla, I support people that do a revolution and don't magically conquer the world in one day maintain armed forces to defend themselves from the bourgeoisie (Or smash them)



Your question is answered in my second post:



And I added



So, stop trying to be edgy. You just don't read what others said and shitpost based on your opinions on what they said.

I didn't said I don't do that (I did that with Redworker recently) but that you do it all the fucking time[/QUOTE]

I'm trying to get my head around whatever the fuck you're trying to say but I don't get it. I was trying to figure out exactly what my opinions were or what my first substantial post was gonna say. You seem to think I even was posting a full opinion. I was not.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Happends that in Brazil everyone and their mother is Stalinist, and this inevitably influences the terminology used by other marxists, and we start to call Socialism what is between capitalism and "Real", worldwide communism.

So from an ideological it becomes a linguistic question.

As I understand it, there are several Trotskyist and leftcom organisations in Brazil, from the ubiquitous United Secretariat, lost deep in the PT, to an ICC branch. They aren't numerous, of course, but if we take that sort of logic to its conclusion - the social-democrats are even more numerous than the Stalinists, almost everywhere.

[HevMet]

Ah we ven every Marxist I've read and watched says socialism and communism are too very different. The former I'm interested, the latter I see as a total fantasy.

Well then you're pretty old school. I've yet to meet anyone who still wants to get rid of all markets (which the Soviets never even did) and nationalize everything, which sounds totally insane.

[VivalaCuarta]

Brazil vies with Argentina for the title of capitol of world "Trotskyism."

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Ah we ven every Marxist I've read and watched says socialism and communism are too very different. The former I'm interested, the latter I see as a total fantasy.

I don't know what Marxists and "Marxists" you've watched, but give Engels's Anti-Duhring a read and see what Engels had to say about the socialist society. Or Lenin in "The State and the Revolution". And even the Stalinists see socialism as transitioning toward communism. To say that you're interested in the transitional stage but not the final product is borderline incoherent. I mean, what interests you? Capitalism with cooperatives.


Brazil vies with Argentina for the title of capitol of world "Trotskyism."

But their military coups aren't as democratic as those in Argentina, according to our Morenoist friends.


Well then you're pretty old school. I've yet to meet anyone who still wants to get rid of all markets (which the Soviets never even did) and nationalize everything, which sounds totally insane.

Of course the Soviets never abolished markets, the abolition of markets is not a matter of snapping one's fingers but of world revolution. A world revolution that the parasitic bureaucracy that led the Soviet state for most of its existence sneered at. And well, obviously you've met some people who want to abolish markets. Stick around and you might meet some more.

[HevMet]

I don't know what Marxists and "Marxists" you've watched, but give Engels's Anti-Duhring a read and see what Engels had to say about the socialist society. Or Lenin in "The State and the Revolution". And even the Stalinists see socialism as transitioning toward communism. To say that you're interested in the transitional stage but not the final product is borderline incoherent. I mean, what interests you? Capitalism with cooperatives.I was going to link to a video of RD Wolff saying socialism and communism are two different things, but apparently can't so it's "Global Capitalism September 2013" at 38:29 time mark. Just an example. Even a glance at the almighty Wikipedia states socialism and communism are two different modes of production.

I'm not a Marxist socialist so I'm not being inconsistent, though technically you could be a Marxist who doesn't believe communism is possible, indeed you could be a Wall Street banker and a Marxist, so whatever. I find Marx's writings and Marxist analysis useful for understanding a lot about capitalism and political economy, but there's serious flaws in it and esp. in its predictions and solutions, so as such I don't consider myself a Marxist, maybe a "Neo-Marxist" but even then that's going too far IMO.

Well if all enterprises and firms were "cooperatives" then it wouldn't be capitalism. And that sounds pretty cool regardless :P I'm more interested in workplace democracy and worker ownership than grand visions of the future.


Of course the Soviets never abolished markets, the abolition of markets is not a matter of snapping one's fingers but of world revolution. A world revolution that the parasitic bureaucracy that led the Soviet state for most of its existence sneered at. And well, obviously you've met some people who want to abolish markets. Stick around and you might meet some more. Uh, sure.

[Faust Arp]

But socialism is a mode of production. Modes of production are historically stable; so if socialism has been achieved (how could it be achieved if the law of value still operates due to ties to the world market?) in one country, then it's sustainable and we can forget about that "world revolution" business.

Though complete autarky would be a pipe dream, I doubt that a revolutionary proletarian dictatorship, confined to one country for the given moment, would have to tie itself to the world market to the point where it becomes an impediment to the socialist principle of distribution. Besides, the law of value isn't tied to capitalism per se, I don't think it's going to kick the bucket until communism kicks in. The law of value can still operate under a primarily needs-based economy, as well as value-based exchange (without market profit mechanisms).

I tend to be very skeptical of differentiation between "socialism" and the DotP. The DotP is a political descriptor, not a mode of production. Even if we held it up as a separate mode of production which is neither capitalism nor socialism, how would it be defined? Defining its economic aspect as just some murky, arbitrary and nondescript transitional period doesn't really cut it for me.

Also, even though any previous transitions between historical modes of production have been anything but clear-cut, the transition from capitalism to socialism has to be marked by a solid line. Earlier transitions had been made by asserting dominance of a new mode of production which already existed, as a growing tumor, within the old one. Due to the totalizing and self-healing nature of capitalism, the transition to socialism has to be made by a conscious, militant human mass ready to finally take the reins of history into its own hands.

And yes, it's true that the "socialism = DotP" line has been used by Stalinists in order to justify Socialism in One Country. But I've seen Stalinist apologics equally taking advantage of the "socialism =/= DotP", where they would defend obviously capitalist economies on the basis of being ruled by a "Communist" Party. I've seen some who genuinely believe that China is still a dictatorship of the proletariat. What I'm trying to say is that neither view is necessarily Stalinist, it's just that either can be used for furthering the Stalinist agenda by distorting the meaning of both the DotP and socialism.

Though I guess HevMet didn't find much of this helpful or overly clear - leave it to the Trots to duke it out between themselves at any place or any time. :D

To answer her question: Yep, the militia would have to be draft-based as it ought to be universal. Making it a volunteer-based would effectively create an armed body separate from the working class, which is an easy road to disaster. And it should be democratic, meaning that the commanders are elected and recallable by their units.

[HevMet]

Heh, I find myself agreeing with you almost totally here :P And no no, Faust Arp this has been very engaging, even if it totally diverted from my question and became a fight :P I appreciate your posts and would like to talk further, if you can tolerate the fact I'm not a Marxist-Leninist or a hardcore socialist.


To answer her question: Yep, the militia would have to be draft-based as it ought to be universal. Making it a volunteer-based would effectively create an armed body separate from the working class, which is an easy road to disaster. And it should be democratic, meaning that the commanders are elected and recallable by their units.Can you explain and go into further detail? I am interested in this.

[Emmett Till]

Though complete autarky would be a pipe dream, I doubt that a revolutionary proletarian dictatorship, confined to one country for the given moment, would have to tie itself to the world market to the point where it becomes an impediment to the socialist principle of distribution. Besides, the law of value isn't tied to capitalism per se, I don't think it's going to kick the bucket until communism kicks in. The law of value can still operate under a primarily needs-based economy, as well as value-based exchange (without market profit mechanisms).

I think you're quite wrong about that, and the collapse of Eastern Europe illustrates the mechanisms as to why.

If the productivity of labor is higher in the land of the D of the P, as would be the case if say the USA went socialist before anyplace else, world capitalism would be in deep trouble with a proletarian USA dominating the world market. But in the vastly more likely case of the world revolution starting in poor countries, the "weak links" of capitalism as Lenin put it, the greater economic prosperity of the capitalist world would slowly but surely undermine workers' rule even with correct non-bureaucratic non-Stalinist leadership.


I tend to be very skeptical of differentiation between "socialism" and the DotP. The DotP is a political descriptor, not a mode of production. Even if we held it up as a separate mode of production which is neither capitalism nor socialism, how would it be defined? Defining its economic aspect as just some murky, arbitrary and nondescript transitional period doesn't really cut it for me.

Doesn't need a formalistic, arbitrary, cut and dried definition. No society could possibly be transformed from capitalism to socialism overnight, even in the best of circumstances it inevitably would take decades. So what else could you possible call what you have during the lengthy transition period other than a transitional society? That is simply a description not a "definition" of a society in motion and transformation. If that bothers you, study dialectics.


Also, even though any previous transitions between historical modes of production have been anything but clear-cut, the transition from capitalism to socialism has to be marked by a solid line. Earlier transitions had been made by asserting dominance of a new mode of production which already existed, as a growing tumor, within the old one. Due to the totalizing and self-healing nature of capitalism, the transition to socialism has to be made by a conscious, militant human mass ready to finally take the reins of history into its own hands.

Well yes. That's why the transition would merely take decades, unlike the many centuries that were required for the transformation from feudalism to capitalism in Europe.

Just because the working class, or rather at least the majority of the working class, feels ready to take human society into its hands and transformsit does not mean it can do so by waving a magic wand. Creating a socialist society is a difficult and inevitably long drawn out process, as it involves, just like you said, a total transformation, moreover one that can't get much of a head start from socialist forms growing within capitalism.

Except in the most purely economic sense. As Marx, Engels and Lenin all liked to emphasize and modern leftists always manage to forget, the modern corporation, in a purely formal sense, is exactly that. It is in fact a form of collective ownership, except by stockholders instead of the whole of society. The corporation, especially the very largest ones, have structures transformable into things we can use.




And yes, it's true that the "socialism = DotP" line has been used by Stalinists in order to justify Socialism in One Country. But I've seen Stalinist apologics equally taking advantage of the "socialism =/= DotP", where they would defend obviously capitalist economies on the basis of being ruled by a "Communist" Party. I've seen some who genuinely believe that China is still a dictatorship of the proletariat. What I'm trying to say is that neither view is necessarily Stalinist, it's just that either can be used for furthering the Stalinist agenda by distorting the meaning of both the DotP and socialism.

Though I guess HevMet didn't find much of this helpful or overly clear - leave it to the Trots to duke it out between themselves at any place or any time. :D

To answer her question: Yep, the militia would have to be draft-based as it ought to be universal. Making it a volunteer-based would effectively create an armed body separate from the working class, which is an easy road to disaster. And it should be democratic, meaning that the commanders are elected and recallable by their units.

That's how it was at first in Soviet Russia. The elective principle had to be abandoned during the Civil War, as it simply is not a good idea militarily.

An army where the soldiers do not automatically obey the officers on the battlefield without asking questions is an army that loses. And soldiers who elect their officers have the unfortunate tendency to elect the most popular officers, especially those whose desire for the soldiers not to die is greater than their desire to win. In other words, a military unit that retreats when things get hot.

Elected officers only work when you have an army of dedicated volunteers with a very high pitch of revolutionary commitment, like Cromwell's New Model Army. With an army of draftees, it would be disastrous. Which is one of the reasons why elected officers is a great thing to advocate in bourgeois armies, because we want to destroy them and see them lose their wars.

As for China, well, subject for other threads. China is obviously not a socialist country, but neither is it really a capitalist country. You have a transitional society in between, with an unusually high dose of capitalism for such countries. That's why China was immune to the worldwide capitalist crisis of 2008. In China the banks are run by a Communist Party which rather likes capitalism but is not beholden to it, ultimately basing its authority on the anti-capitalist 1949 Revolution, most other countries the banks give the governments orders rather than the other way around and you have a clearly delineated capitalist class firmly in the saddle.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

'Defend itself' from whom, do you think?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/ UYHSggGBolGxUVITEhJSkrLi4uFx8zODMtNygtLisBCgoKDg0O GxAQGi0fHx8tLS0tLSstLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS 0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLTEtLf/AABEIANIA8AMBIgACEQEDEQH/xAAcAAABBAMBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAgMFBgABBwj/xABOEAABAwIEAwYBCAQKBgsAAAABAAIDBBEFEiExBkFRBxMiYX GBkRQjMkJSobHBJHKT0SUzYnOCkqKz0+EVFhc1tMI0Q0RUY4OE o7Lw8f/EABkBAAMBAQEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAECAwAEBf/EACsRAAICAQQBBAECBwAAAAAAAAABAhEDBBIhMUETIjJRcYGRB SMkQmGxwf/aAAwDAQACEQMRAD8A5YFtaC2uc7BKHm3RLkNMU8QoZKxbcklOE dYioghYgio0kjMdWlgSgpimgtJSxAxpYQi8Pw+SZ4jiaXO8r2A 6uPIKTkweGE2qJS532IuvLM9w0HoEexXJIgbLLKZbSR+Q87/itVTKdnhJJcRcEDT4ptrF9REQAtWUnR4ex7S4zBhAJAcxxDrbD M36N/RCRU5cbCyFB3oHsssjJ8PewXI06jX0Q74iLXBF9r81qG3IbSbJ dlqywRC04JdkghYwJPukNTk6Q0KlmNuWmhbctNTGE5VoJxJCxg 3mlLLLYCiMJKEn3RjghZ00QIZK0UpyS4KiYw5CjIkJCEZEpzAx wBZZYt2UrBRllJ4ThBmu4uayMGxc4nMT9mNoHid8EJRWzi7c3k b2v52U7UvyRhrGjTxl9rE+Q6BFcsnJi6jEy2M01OMkdySSMrn9 SS3U7cyghK06aFw+JQVTWvPiby8lG/LhYcndRzHRVS+idfYTX1JBFtOqE+VE6E6ckJVVGY2W2EBXS4FY dHMGb80Vh+Id08PAuDprrv5KOdEXanZMvkSuNmRYKrGpg13dPy A6ZW2AyncWUX8sdob6n03PQIUTWaeqVTDM4JKGVEvFOQLOs7Q2 uBf4oQtTxu3X4LcPj0uLk8zZTY6YMkvCdeLEjpokEJSgDOktCX MNVobqiGoS4JLQnXhIaE6YDVklLWrIWEOAW0qy0FCxbEuQk26N cgpt08Qpjb1pyU9JKohhyFGRhC06MjUpgYuyXHHdaAU5QUtS1g MeQAjN9UkjzuNEiEbocp3tgYAA3M4Xc7Qut9kdAgKnES+QF/0dAG8renRC1JeXnvNDfXYfcFqsw5zgC1wN9PTzTpE2JxSvdlcy 9mgksFuR6Hoq4XKZqcNsPpZ/y9k/g3D7pnBrRc8/L3V4UlYnL6IenpnHlfRSFBhMh3abXuV1fCOEYo2gOFyPxR1ThL bHK0D0SS1CKrBJ8nLamAZbWsQoeWlJXSMQwUuNsvuoSqwSwWWZ A9GRSXx2SYaktvZTNZhjlC1EBYdVSMoyEcJIKNc5w8k02axv+K 1HINOiYleCdEdgFIkY6trj0RMgsoA3RtDUuPhJv0U5465KRmOT 7pAGqXNusskRYS5IjTrkhiJjMq1ZLWrLIwZdYjPkg6rPkfmoWK BPQcu6mjQg803/AKLHVNGaRrId4SHKddhbeq0cIaeab1UHcRNMEexqKiwpo2Kakj ymySU0w2aAU1htfrZxcOQsLqHATkKVCyRI1lA3N9IX3te5HmQN kgRPFr3sNraXQD65jWjUi5+qPG4g7G+wRrHudYuccu4a42+4BV SZBmpI762J8lfuCcODWZralVakc17gLfBdMwinDWNb5LZZUqKa eNuwtkF01IyylYWaIWrbqpbOLOxT5oiKpoUFWwjXRT9YoerUpI qmis10IsqriNODe6uGJbFVSr3KeDaZKcU0VeojyOSoob7J/FmbFNYdOb5V6UXcTzZrbIeFPokQQ2eE659iiKc3UZtorEYmGq3 ZKnHiSi3ZSsshpwSIwnpGpmHdMmbyKDVgTgGq0GpbCSZfZaEyy ZqaLbKRJD5ekiQrQC2WoGFCZLbKmSEtoWfRiQohdN4pFsUVhrN Cm8W5KSfuCiMa1ONasASwE9jMCqoXOOoJts5tj8WlP994bG+nP a/siGhD1lE5w8IvdWhkT7JyiWXgpnePva9iunUxXPOzWP5tzrc7K 9sq2s1cpy5kdONVAnWbICtdqhRxRC05XXHsUmor45ASxwKq+gR fILUybqIrb7ouNxJKGxV9mqLRborGJSbquVW6na86XVfqX7oxQ rZDYodAo6J1jdH4m7RRq9DF8Tz8/wAgjvCiKSosQDz0QbHckZBCQ5p8xZbJ0aDCqj6QTpCbqR4wiS1 ccnR1RQPINEzTt1RMo0TVFuUb4D5FNbqtNG6dYNStMbqUtjB8r U3Ii3s1TTmqKkc5qyxyeii1TkkKG4AIxtyt5dU6xlktset0XIJ JYazwlC4qNQpTD4/Co7FbBwUU+RkBNalBqzMFvMEzbGMDVJYbEBJEXHQvDbcvH4fzU aHhSFLAHlmv1m2F+jgU0QPstnDdJ3YkaBYCV4A8m6fjdS8tsw+ bc88gy1/vISnMs4gC2pJHmTco6Vhy5mmx8k8bb4OpxuJV8fxtoOXuXsI5P Zb7wSE5wvTd+SW3DevI+Sdkw5s77SOefQhWfDaOOBgbGDbqTqn u2T2OKorfEs3yYHqVSaeoqap5ax4FvtFTHaFWl8ob0VVwnNHMX B72Eiwcw2t6jmmVeRZ3QrF6eeE2e4O9Col09+SmMYkf9aXvPMg X+5Qwbc3VFROJH4kNFGqUxLkEHOzLZdON+0jlVuxhG4fO1p1bc 3Fjfb2TUMObbdWKjy6BzLGw1sCD7qWbIkqBjgAVR8YReVCVh+c 91IEbei5Zvo64IFmGiYw4alFVA0KHwoXJRv2M1chDG+MrUY1cn mM8ZSYGauU1IeiSe3VIazVETt10Wo2FR3HILp2rJEunYVvublL ZhgNTgjTjoCE7TsuhYUSdDH4AqxxE+0iulPFZgVR4gYO9KXFL3 FYRIXvCt5yicgShGF0+oiu0Ha7rdTfDMgFTBm2zAn8h8VH90FK YI4Mexztg8AaXJJ0sEFMSaR0cu8VyjavFGRxWPRR+VQmMUhlu1 zyxg3I3PkEccqbL8UrCMFxgyz5YwSL+J1tArbVOIaXHYBVnBqy CGPJG0gddyfMnqk1vETjE5lr/AI29F0RXAJTtlIx2oLpXO80HC4HbdMVOIh0jhYjVMiSx0StCtp sMrGX1Kj5dEXUzXCj5XpoitJA0rbvB6IGou9x6BHOGjj5Imhwk EZnXF9gPzVHkUFbJOO7gAw9pIv02Ug1xUjHSNaLAaLfdNXHPPu dlIY0kRDobm6PtcBEd01YWJJZLHSAapvhKYwUeIo6qZ4SheHx4 in3fymLXIY1vjKTTs8TkUxnzpSaVnieo7+B6JpsQcliEXTtLEc xKVJHuo7jkECJvJb7oC5TkMKVJGhuDQFFHmJT8UQCJoYNSsigJ f7rbzUTEcPhaqRxEz54ro8cVgPRc/wCImXnckxS9xbGQuRKDU/3SwRro3FRsNUhh1K93jGjYyHEnYW6eaHjiR4me4NhiFgSBbqSb An7k8HbJZOEXenxBh5+/sgsXu8AMG7hb96gy8x+HNfVzATzMbi11vcKawPxub1br5K+2hY zvgzDYJ4qlsMkrWwFjiH92C7Ppla4+ZJ+ARfEeCVEfiEImFj44 t7bnMzce10ZjbRluWl1uQ3HmPNVqfiUsjyCV4A0A1Fh00XRGqK OLfMX+5Ra6EB53a6/0SLfimmy8junsQn715dY77kklIs22vLZZpE2qNSlCSFOyzBR1V Uck0Y2JKfBIYXEH3JOx2UyGqDwyAh0b2ElrtHeXqrD3S4tTxIt i5VjNlndp8QlKEJXHvKUDd2lsjTvdFPwwoOYaI6uZ4CgOGW3eV M4gzwOUdwe273K6n/Ikxa9yJFkfzzkmjj8Unuj2x/Pu9Emgj8cnr+S5Xk4/RFNpYmU5tsgpqYl+isLG6BRsT7yu6JVM4QUMS3xG11ItiCUWgN chuDRHUYRtHSl0jQBzScIp7tPqp4BtPE6U72+Cthx+pKhlHkTK 3e3LQ+qouKwNdI6/VSmGYtI/NGNTI8O9AN1E4swiV481PJBY50mdUYUwb5E3qmzSDqltujocOk Ni6zR/KOvw3RjHJJ8GnOMeyPipCSGt1J2AUxhlKIqqnjuC67pH9BkY4t HoDYp6laxn0df5XM/uCCw2a+JM/mZvj4f816mDTuCuXZ5+XPvdLocmw8mBzPrsllcDzuZXH7wR8Vr hzFwx4DvQ8gp+rgP0m7/WHXlceaq+KUV3GSPR3Mba/vT0Fvm0XeqxGNwta/X3VHxCNmc2FwoefGZGaOv5qOdjQNzexTpMbcHVrGa2tdQNZMBz TM+IE80E5xKtHGK5Dz5kPMLWRNNTkkaXJNgNySdgEdxFgE9OGO lZYOHW5Hk4cinUldCSTqxWCQSkZonNI+s07j2VnoaaS3zm/t+SoNFWPicHMNj9x8irnh+PskA5O5tPXy6rztdiyPmK4OnT5I9 MlxTLfydDfLD0W/lZXkOEzsTQQKdK7uyAdiYBDTuVNPi8IPVJPdGr8hjTIfEW+Byi +CR43eqmsRb4Heih+Bx43epXXF/00xWveiwtb+kO9EihZ85KiWs/SD6JNA352X/7yXE5cP8ACKUTlPUE7pUEIuSsEJ6J5sZHJUPNoJZEOqGqYRcrY DuhS3t0u7T10WUW+g9Ehw7SAkdBqU5xJhclR4WnKwbn/JSWA0wbFmPPX2VZ4u4r7u8cR8W1wdl7Omxenj58hg23wOcIYW1 okIa95a8szNY9wByg2u0EXsR8UziXDkz5C/uJiCdhGQT7nZW/stj/AEBsh3kkkefMh3d3/wDbVuTLQYnLe7bIz1M7aRw6up5KewfCYc18uYauDbXsfLMPih6 SCad5ZDG6QgXcG62B01V47Ym5YKeW1y2Uxj+mwu1/ZhQ3YwSZ6gnnG3/5rqUIx4SOdtvsjf8AV2t/7tL/AFVVMNqMtfTu+1nZ/WaT+S9Lryji1R3ZhlH1JGu9gdfuRaNFHX6ejke3MyORzbkBzWO IJaS02NuoI9lF41g0oGcxvj1tmcwhpJ5HRdF4HcDRREbF0pHvP Im+Ox+jD+cZ+aDgqGUnZx88L1NQwPZTvcLkBwAIOUlpsediCPZ QdT2bYgTpRy+2Ufmu/wDAg/Qo/wBef/iJVNzzNYMz3NaOriAPiVlAb1H9HlHFeCq2mZ3k1LJGy4bndktc 7DRxT1BwPiMsbJYqSR8bwHNcMlnA7EXcu19rdXFLQZGSxuPesN mva46ZuQKsHZ822G0Y6RNHwTeaBvPP9BQTYfWUzq2F0QvmAfY3 H0cwsTsSFesfwWasbnjhfIx17ENJBANtCd9QdVcO1bBY56Zr3t ByOLCSNWtlsLjzziMe6luz6Du8OpYwb5GFtzzyvcL/AHJNibKLI1G0eX+KuGp6OQNlidGHDM3NbUXty81rh3hSurb/ACSnfIAbF4ytYD07x5Db+V7rt3axhbamqhgOneMjjB5gvmc249 LrpWGYfFTxMhhYGRsaGtaBYAD8TzJ5lUi/BF/ZwSl7N8bjbfu4Xi30DM3N6XOl/dDVkUlM4MrKd9O47Fwux36sjSWu9iV3GHiyldXvw5rnGoYzvHD L4ALNOXN9qzmm3mjsdwiKrgkp5mhzHgjUatP1Xt6OB1B8lHLps eTtFIZ5x8nl7EW3nYW6tPMbK8vb4GegXMWVD2OLSSHNJa79Zps fvCsFHxLKAGvs8DrofivO1mhlNR2eDsw6pL5E3iDfA70UHwMPn HepUicWjkYR9FxGx/eg+BWWkeCLG5XNslDTTUkdO+MpJoszW/pDvRN0A+dlRTW/pDvRNULfnpV5t8P8Isw3/W2AHVFx8TQEXXPDxHTHdn9lF03EVOS1rWXJIAGXmV6j0bX9rPH 3F2reI2Bl4xr1t06eajsJqH1D4gXFznAFxPLn7KArqk68uQA5B Wbswou8HenZgDR5nmvRw4I440iduTLJxJi7ooxHGCXWtYLmeK0 UzX5pWkF2uq6xieLU8F3PsSNR1XNeKeIHVLy4NsADYDmqujsjw jtfAtPkw+kbteFjz6yDOfvcjGV36W6C+0LJbfrSSN/5UXRQCONkY2Y1rR/RAH5KnUdbfH52dKRrPdrmSAfCUro6POC+1CkMmHy5RdzXROaBu T3jWn7nFVnsjopIqifvG5bxNtqDs/X8V0LiGMupZwN+7eW/rBpLfvAVL7Oa8S1U1jfLEPveP3IP5IdRTi39HRF5L4jHzY/WXrReS+If4v3WkKj0N2TvLsJpCd8r7/tZEZx04CmBOgEjST5AOJQfZKf4Jo/1X/30iA7bpyzCZnN3zRt9nuyn7iUfBvJJ9mFZ32GwS/bfUOHoambL91kL2vyPbhkrmAlwkhIABdf51txYA8rpvsT/ANy0f/n/APEzK8Im8nlmolI8WUgHUXaRvy1G69C9npvhtGf/AAmqI7V8KNTDSw5sodUgud0aIZibeanuDaYRUUETSSGNLATa5D HFoJtz0SRVOhn8bD8WohNDJEdM7C0HoSPC72Nj7KN4HzfIYM4y us7M37Lu8dmHsbhTl0mKMNFmiwuT7uJc4+5JPunEs51x9MGYnR OOwMBJ6AVBJK6QuW9rMOadn8y34F8ik+CuPmSNZT1bgyUWa2Vx 8EvIZj9V/roTtqbJE6k0O17UyG4pwqpw/FpMZip3VUL4ssjI3WfE7IxhcRY3ZZgNwDbW9tyIO3Vp/wCwu/bj/DXY1zTtF7MYqgPqaNojqBdzo2gBk/M6fVk6EaHn1DinBql+eSSS1s73vt0zuLrX91vIVbeB+GIa0ytk lljdG3vPCxrmlmxvfXMDyT1Pw3TPrxRNlnykljZO7jzGQNLjdt 7ZLA+d1zPUwUnF9x5Y6g2rKYX2TtJi0kTg+N1iPcHyI5qY41wW CklEMUksjrXeZGNY0aloy21OrTuqvIqw2ZY32mMm4svmA8Sxyy l0to3WAJJ8BJPInb0KnKEfPSrk9W7KwMHq71V/7PasyROvqWeE9bW8N/w9l4v8S0UcWN5Ifij0NNqN72yOd2UngVSyOUPdvYhvkTz+Cjsi mcIw4d257xq4WZ5DmV7bdnBJkrUzB+q6Bw280tAw83AuPvsuZU 4tcFdSfTB9HG06WYPwU5Ax8MpVfiBmzF5N76eSTw/T95VU7PtTRNPoZG3+66HqYchICn+zmDPiVMOTXPef6MbyP7WVS j8kdM5e1nflBQcLxNrX1wfJ3j92ktyWyNZYeG+zQd91Oqgt42n/ANL/ACDLF3OcszWd3mkJfvmt9MW22XW2l2cKTfRfXC4sdiuTdjlOY6 qrjOpY3ISd7skLT+C60ue8GU/d4xijPR/7Vwl/51n2azoS8m4828ZXrJc/4j7OMNbS1DxC7MyKR7fnptHNY5wNs9jqNlmjIP7ID/A9F+o/+9kQPbkwnCZQBcmSH+9ajex7/c9F+o/++kT3acAaE3sB3kdyeQBvdY3kH7G4i3B6VpFiDPp/6mZM9tcjm4TOWOLXZ4QC0kHWZg3CP7Lng4ZARtmnt6fKZlN49g sFZC6nqGl8bi0loc5mrXBzfE0gjUDmijHk7A8enimbIZHuym9n vc4dDoT0uvUvBNQJKGmkGz2Zx6OJd+a592h9m+GUuHVNTBAWyx taWO76Z1iZGg+FzyDoTurv2aD+CqH+YZ+CFc2Fy4oJ+WFuImMn wyUzLD+WySY6erS7+qFOqhcX1BjxGCUXvGyJxtvkzziX+wXq+h ZPs0o0k/s532gUpkrIW7AsiY4i1wHzPaSL87Ep+TsrpHXvNUa+cX+Go7tO xB0NXEW6/NNNupbI8tXSaSpbIxkjCHMe0OaRsQ4XBSpJtjNvajmvDmNyUWL f6HMj5qcgCF0pzSRu7gTZcwAuz6QA5aWXT1S5+A82MMxQzaNb/E5N390Yr577ZTe1t1cyU5M4/wAL04jxPFWAaBs1h5OlzAfeisJxvDvl7YW0jBVd45jZRC0WeGu Lj3mYu2DtVXIOKooqutqAA/v3vaw54w3uXPuHm5BLiALDTQ+ekPRYpCzEvl2paHGRsfeRX7xw LSCc30AHE9eXmvFy4HPNkk06a4r7PVWjyKCpX+31+QftSu6vIa CT3bdB+vLdVSkgcTmLTYXtodSP3K38Q18FRVtqWEtOQsc174yC bkgtyuJv4jv5KMjqGWbYtb9I2LhofPzuu3TzlDFGNdJHdg/hePIryz2vni1/iv8ApU67MHHMCD5hWnswq8tQ+I7PYSP1ma/gSoXHZmlsbMwe9t8zgb9Oal+zKlzVRfyjjcfd3hA/H4J9a1LST3fTPLliWLVbIO0q/wBdfoRVHBne1vU//qnqp1rNAsBoAo/C2MY3vXuIJuGAC/q4nknhUtdrmB/FVOST5HA2/quuQxD5OwfyB+C5NSwl7g1u5Nl1CoeWxBvMNA+ASSGxlHxiDK8 63WsAxyWjm7+ERl+VzQJGuc0B1rmzXNN9OvMrWKnxG6i5Xc1Nd nRw1yXv/axiH2KT9lN/jKrM4gmNZ8tGTvRIZLFru7zG4tlzXy67ZvdQmbMdEXHHayqrfZ Ce1cIvDu1jEfsUn7Kb/GUbS9oFWyplqmsp+9la1j7xyZLM0aQ3vbg7czsqtIkNCe2QL/8A7WMQ+xSfspv8ZB4p2p18kUkbmUuV7HMdaKUHK9pabEzGxsei p+ZC1J0RthRbeAO0Wshp20kbafJDcNL45HPIc4uJcRKBu47BDc ZdptdMDSyx0+QlrwY2SNecpva7pHDy25qmcPzZZyOoKL4jYfDK z6TTdFPnkxZeG+1StpadlNEyncGl5Y6SOQk55HSODi2Vovd5Gg 2AUxH2y4i7aOkAb9MmKbQdR8/9y5bDPdpFvC43c77Lv3FFyzk2uMoYLfzmm/mfyRfA1Fv4l7Uq2thmpXx0whkAzOayVsgAcHCxMpF7gckvAe1i vp4Y6aKOlMcTA1rnxylxA2zESgE+wVHl8LNrF+pHQfVHwSItAS tZqOocM8bzYhXgVTYmkxZB3TXNaQxzn2Ic9x1zHmun09dUsY1r XxENAaC6F5cQ0WGYiUAnTewXmfAMS7iqim+y4X9DofuK9C4fiQ e1pB0IBB8ipNtMtGpRr6Khx7PPLK2SYxGzcje7a5mlyfEHPdrq dio7AOMqqiGWJzXR3v3UgLmi5uS2xBaTrsbX1sVN8aRC1wf8iq HMNEu52BpdHQT2yvGhomk9e/IHw7tVniXtKrKhtnZYobgujjveRoIJY97twdRYAA31BVUlURjF Rs0K0LZKUaLrH2h0Jma/5AGgOcSGtjJIcKgWaXatJ71ut9LG2lgmoeNYGR5ZKQOaKYQNba I3IMtw9xZcsc10ILh4rwDqVziEahEVs19Aq7RC+Ytx1T1PegUg ia6JkYLGQ54y2R4dIxxH0nQPLPI7LP8AXujs4GjvmhbGG5afI3 KxzTCCGZu5LiH5ic92jkufwBx0b7lOPpAOdytRiz8dcV01ayNs FG2mLXve5zcvjD2sGuUb3bfoo7gbEu4q47nwyHun+jzofZ1ioJ zVphIII0INx7JMuOM8bg/I2OeySZYKNxyN1RbWjosWKbDPsm+Fx87J5DTy8QV6xLb2WlilL sbGUDGz4lFTnwrFiSPZ0eBdJsiSsWK6OafY1Itc1ixYQzkhanZ YsRMiMw3/AKQ31/Iqcr/oO9CsWLS+SCysUf8AFyf0UbU/9V6D8QtrFWfQY9Ca76RTTtlpYkiEYduuy9njyaaK5J0O581ixT y9lcPkM4t+iVRnrFikgsi65V7FNx7rFi6MXZKfQJHutO3WLF0E vA84+FFxDwLFiUwG9NOWLEQeT//Zhttp://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--29WVsSbR--/h4m6l59o6nsyn0zt9fcf.jpg

Joking aside, it's not without the realm of possibility that some organized body might be needed at some point in the future. I could think of a number of hypothetical scenarios (aside from extraterrestrial invasion)

[HevMet]

The Borg or the Goa'uld?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I was going to link to a video of RD Wolff saying socialism and communism are two different things, but apparently can't so it's "Global Capitalism September 2013" at 38:29 time mark. Just an example. Even a glance at the almighty Wikipedia states socialism and communism are two different modes of production.

Yes, and to be blunt that's because Wikipedia is run by Randroids who don't have a clue about socialism. This is pretty apparent when considering the articles about left communism and so on, or about "anarcho"-capitalism. Wolff, by the way, doesn't even consider himself a Marxist but a "Marxian", which means he selectively quotes from Marx's work to support a capitalist conclusion.


Well if all enterprises and firms were "cooperatives" then it wouldn't be capitalism.

It would. It would be a particularly inefficient form of capitalism, but capitalism nonetheless. A cooperative is simply a form of capitalist enterprise where the workers happen to be the same people as owners. But it's still a capitalist enterprise regulated by the law of value; the same old shit.


And that sounds pretty cool regardless :P I'm more interested in workplace democracy and worker ownership than grand visions of the future.

These things already exist and are compatible with capitalism. And when it comes to cooperatives being cool, well - speak for yourself. I'd rather be employed by that bogeyman of soft lefts everywhere, the multinational corporation, than a cooperative. Besides, the multinational corporation is infinitely closer to what we want.


Though complete autarky would be a pipe dream, I doubt that a revolutionary proletarian dictatorship, confined to one country for the given moment, would have to tie itself to the world market to the point where it becomes an impediment to the socialist principle of distribution.

Of course it would have to participate in the world market. It's not just that complete autarky is a pipe dream; any kind of autarky is a pipe-dream. No region of the world produces all of the goods needed to satisfy internal demand, so unless you want this "socialism" to be some kind of garrison state of generalised poverty, the revolutionary area will have to trade.


Besides, the law of value isn't tied to capitalism per se, I don't think it's going to kick the bucket until communism kicks in. The law of value can still operate under a primarily needs-based economy, as well as value-based exchange (without market profit mechanisms).

The law of value is not tied to capitalism, but it is tied to market exchange which by supposition would not exist in socialism - unless your "socialism" is that of the Wolffian variety. And you can't simply excise profit from the operation of the law of value - profit arises organically in these situations and in fact profit is necessary for an entity to trade on the world market.


I tend to be very skeptical of differentiation between "socialism" and the DotP. The DotP is a political descriptor, not a mode of production. Even if we held it up as a separate mode of production which is neither capitalism nor socialism, how would it be defined? Defining its economic aspect as just some murky, arbitrary and nondescript transitional period doesn't really cut it for me.

Murky and nondescript? But there are entire books dedicated to the subject, as it was a pressing issue in Russia in the twenties. Preobrazhensky in particular worked out a very complete theory of the transitional period - so did Bukharin, for that matter, but it's not a very good theory, jumping from ultraleftism to right-wing gradualism. I'm sure you're familiar with the basics: in the transitional period, the law of value is limited by and gradually supplanted by the law of planning. What defines the transitional period is the contradictory existence of these two regulators of productive activity.

And the transitional period (not a mode of production but a set of historically unstable relations of production) corresponds to at least two state forms: the workers' state and the degenerated/deformed workers' state (the latter is more than just the first with some modifiers - this was a point made by Wohlforth in "Cuba and Marxist Theory", before the insanity started).

[HevMet]

Yes, and to be blunt that's because Wikipedia is run by Randroids who don't have a clue about socialism. This is pretty apparent when considering the articles about left communism and so on, or about "anarcho"-capitalism. So there's some conspiracy of Randroids on Wikipedia to say what Marxists say? Okay.


Wolff, by the way, doesn't even consider himself a Marxist but a "Marxian", which means he selectively quotes from Marx's work to support a capitalist conclusion.He says "I'm a proud Marxist" and doesn't support capitalism, so no. Not that this would refute anything he or I said in any case.


It would. It would be a particularly inefficient form of capitalism, but capitalism nonetheless. A cooperative is simply a form of capitalist enterprise where the workers happen to be the same people as owners. But it's still a capitalist enterprise regulated by the law of value; the same old shit.No.


These things already exist and are compatible with capitalism. And when it comes to cooperatives being cool, well - speak for yourself. I'd rather be employed by that bogeyman of soft lefts everywhere, the multinational corporation, than a cooperative. Besides, the multinational corporation is infinitely closer to what we want.Are you speaking English? You're one of the silliest and most ridiculous people I've ever come across online. Everything you say is a string of jargon or crackpot fantasies and ideas fit for a shortwave radio broadcast.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

So there's some conspiracy of Randroids on Wikipedia to say what Marxists say? Okay.

It's not a conspiracy, it's a fact about the demographics of the site, the sort of people it draws in as editors (when it comes to political subjects in particular) and hence the bias in its articles. That's hardly something surprising; it's also a public secret that many physics articles on Wikipedia are edited by cranks (or at least used to be a few years ago), which is why pseudoscience like "Heim theory" got promoted as actual physics.


He says "I'm a proud Marxist" and doesn't support capitalism, so no. Not that this would refute anything he or I said in any case.

He supports autonomous firms trading on the market and the continued existence of private ownership, so yes, he supports capitalism even if he calls it "market socialism" (a lot of varieties of capitalism are called "something socialism" - national socialism, Prussian socialism, neo-socialism, Arab socialism, Kenyan socialism, Islamic socialism, the list just goes on and son; this doesn't affect what socialism is any more than Zhirinovsky's party affects what liberalism is).


No.

Private ownership? Check. De-facto wage labour? Check. Markets? Check. Commodity production? Check. So it is capitalism, as the term is generally understood.


Are you speaking English?

I seem to be, yes. Do you have a question or response to what I've written?

[HevMet]

It's not a conspiracy, it's a fact about the demographics of the site, the sort of people it draws in as editors (when it comes to political subjects in particular) and hence the bias in its articles. That's hardly something surprising; it's also a public secret that many physics articles on Wikipedia are edited by cranks (or at least used to be a few years ago), which is why pseudoscience like "Heim theory" got promoted as actual physics.

So its articles on left wing subjects are written by randroids and Wikipedia is full of cranks, so says the crank with out of touch realities on society..? Ok.


He supports autonomous firms trading on the market and the continued existence of private ownership, so yes, he supports capitalism even if he calls it "market socialism" (a lot of varieties of capitalism are called "something socialism" - national socialism, Prussian socialism, neo-socialism, Arab socialism, Kenyan socialism, Islamic socialism, the list just goes on and son; this doesn't affect what socialism is any more than Zhirinovsky's party affects what liberalism is).

So it went from he says he's not a Marxist to he's the wrong kind of Marxist and socialist, even if he doesn't promote the things you say, he rails against markets and profit all the time, which I don't agree with, but then again, he's a Marxist and I'm not.


Private ownership? Check. De-facto wage labour? Check. Markets? Check. Commodity production? Check. So it is capitalism, as the term is generally understood.

Well given that you think "private ownership" and markets have anything to do with socialism and capitalism, I don't find this worth continuing.


I seem to be, yes. Do you have a question or response to what I've written?

No, you're one of the biggest cranks I've ever met online. Being here has sapped practically all my interest in "far left" socialism so I'm glad I got this awakening :P

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I'm glad too; it's always good when people clarify their political position. Of course you made a complete ass out of yourself by coming to a site dedicated to revolutionary socialism and then acting indignant when people oppose private ownership of the means of production, but that's your problem. I regret that you didn't even try to read and understand what we're saying - a lot of people come here and they think socialism is Altamirano or Allende or Nenni or Saragat, but they're willing to learn something, even if they don't end up agreeing with us. But as you seem to want some kind of "better" capitalism (where "better" is actually worse from every perspective), alright, good luck in life.

[Heretek]

Ah, so now that I understand what the op means by "socialism," I can safely say her armed forces would look like every military in the world today. Under what circumstances would making a few inefficient corporate reforms change the nature of the government, society, or the military?