What is Socialist Transition?

[elijahcraig]

http://ptb.lashout.net/marx2mao/Other/WIST.html

I thought this was good considering all the posting members who have a problem understanding the concept of socialist transition vs. "straight to communism" or anarchism, or any of the other pseudo-socialist theories.

[gaf]

there is no sasquatch man .he!
well sorry just joking.no transition man they live i live too.respect means everythings i mean ,everything.if people dont understand that we're doom, what ever we try(good will
'bad will or stupidity ,theory or not we will do the same mistake.)i know lets pray for chaos ,you never know(long shot)

[elijahcraig]

^Once again, what???



You need to be clearer in your post, or find a translator if you not good at speaking english.

[gaf]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 12:19 AM
^Once again, what???



You need to be clearer in your post, or find a translator if you not good at speaking english.
with time you will.understand.
but i believe more and more in chaos theory.not the transition one.

[elijahcraig]

Chaos theory?

:lol:

You are a fucking moron.

[gaf]

you,re getting personal,ducon

[elijahcraig]

:o

O, no...

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 08:44 AM
you,re getting personal,ducon
Dont worry, he's like that with everyone.

the artical:

It takes the typical stance that Socialism some petty sub-ideology of communism, which has existed and only exists to lead to the path of a communist society. One which has been directly described in the communist manifesto, with marx and Engels 10 point plan for the conversion of society. As if that and that alone is the essance and being of socialism, and that all the other socialist structures, models and ideologies, all labeled as socialst are therefor fake, and that only Marx could ever know the true definition of socialism. What they fail to realise is that is only one type of socialism, and that many other forms of socialism exist. Just because marx described it as socialism, does not make socialism anything as specific as "the transition of the capitalist state into communism".

Well that is not what socialism is, socialism is described by very nicely by August Bebel as: -

"The organisation of society in such a manner that any individual, man or woman, finds at birth equal means for the development of their respective faculties and the utilisation of their labour. The organisation of society in such a manner that the exploitation by one person of the labour of his neighbour would be impossible, and where everyone will be allowed to enjoy the social wealth only to the extent of their contribution to the production of that wealth."

and as you can see that is a very wide ranging, it covers simple co-operatives right through to your full blown ultra controlled communist super state.

[Subversive Rob]

For each of the past revolutions, after the communist party seized power, it had two roles: 1) to remain in power and to administer the state apparatus, and 2) to act as the vanguard of the proletariat. These are two sides of a contradiction. The communist party has to stay in power in order to act as the vanguard of the proletariat, yet to act as the vanguard of the proletariat the communist party also has to continue relinquishing its power. For many reasons still yet to be further explored, in one country after another that succeeded the revolution, at some point staying in power became the only goal of the communist party. When the communist party no longer acts the agent for change, the link between the proletariat and the communist party was broken. When that happened, the communist party began to use the dictatorship of the proletariat to justify the dictatorship of the communist party

This was a very interesting statement in the text, brings up some issues. Have you read "On The Dictatorship of the Proletariat" by Etienne Balibar (on the same site) because that's good too.


It takes the typical stance that Socialism some petty sub-ideology of communism, which has existed and only exists to lead to the path of a communist society. One which has been directly described in the communist manifesto, with marx and Engels 10 point plan for the conversion of society. As if that and that alone is the essance and being of socialism, and that all the other socialist structures, models and ideologies, all labeled as socialst are therefor fake, and that only Marx could ever know the true definition of socialism. What they fail to realise is that is only one type of socialism, and that many other forms of socialism exist. Just because marx described it as socialism, does not make socialism anything as specific as "the transition of the capitalist state into communism".


Well of course it takes that stance. Since China claims to be advancing towards communism and claims to be led by a Marxist Leninist party it make sense to analyse it in this way.


"The organisation of society in such a manner that any individual, man or woman, finds at birth equal means for the development of their respective faculties and the utilisation of their labour. The organisation of society in such a manner that the exploitation by one person of the labour of his neighbour would be impossible, and where everyone will be allowed to enjoy the social wealth only to the extent of their contribution to the production of that wealth."


Described very nicely? It seems to me to be a vague platitudinous utopia.

[Invader Zim]

Well of course it takes that stance. Since China claims to be advancing towards communism and claims to be led by a Marxist Leninist party it make sense to analyse it in this way.

and your point being?

vague platitudinous utopia

Ohh I see some has a new copy of the dictionary for their birthday.

But that aside you clearly dont understand what the quote means. It means in short, that every one, is equil to use their labour as they wish, and able to enjoy a fair portion of societies wealth, which is determined by the amount of labour they put in personally.

If this sounds like a "utopia", then you should choose a new ideology, as you are no leftist.

[Nas]

i agree with Enigma , the quote didnt mean a utopia, it only states what socialism is, and socialism is not utopia

[Subversive Rob]

The description is platidinous, utopian even due to its lack of concrete specifications on how this society works.It speaks nothing of who holds power, how this is constructed.

I mean how can everyone "use their labour as they wish?". By what methods will this be acheived?

It is utopian as it forgets provisions for the disabled, ill or young (i.e. how much labour will they put in) and also forgets to mention that some of the peoples labour will not be directly renumerated to them as it is used to indirectly benefit them through medical care etc.

In short have you ever read Critique of the Gotha Programme?


and your point being?

That we analyse them by their own claims, if they claim to be in transition and they're not we critique them for it.

[Daymare17]

No offense to the author, but this is all very abstract, ambiguous, and it doesn't really give a concrete analysis of the transitional stage. A far better and more clear-cut analysis (IMO) lies here (http://www.marxist.com/russiabook/part4.html). This chapter takes the degeneration of the USSR as its base and concretely explains the phenomenon through all its stages, in the process producing a finished thesis on the necessary nature of the transitional regime. A very good read!

[ComradeRed]

I am not familiar with the chaos theory, what is it?

[antieverything]

It certainly isn't relevant.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Subversive [email protected] 13 2004, 05:26 PM
The description is platidinous, utopian even due to its lack of concrete specifications on how this society works.It speaks nothing of who holds power, how this is constructed.

I mean how can everyone "use their labour as they wish?". By what methods will this be acheived?

It is utopian as it forgets provisions for the disabled, ill or young (i.e. how much labour will they put in) and also forgets to mention that some of the peoples labour will not be directly renumerated to them as it is used to indirectly benefit them through medical care etc.

In short have you ever read Critique of the Gotha Programme?


and your point being?

That we analyse them by their own claims, if they claim to be in transition and they're not we critique them for it.
It speaks nothing of who holds power, how this is constructed.

Well i'm sorry, next time I will remember to quote a 30,000 word thesis for you.

I mean how can everyone "use their labour as they wish?".

By choosing a profession wehich suits you, rather than being forced into certain jobs by necessity. I do not consider this to be a particularly complex ideal.

It is utopian as it forgets provisions for the disabled, ill or young

You clearly fail to understand the nature of a "utopia" in a socialist context, you also fail to understand the nature of socialism. Socialism is not a specific ideology like communism, it is a principal of ideals. For specific solutions to societies problems, you are forced to choose an ideology within the socialist spectrum.

[gaf]

we,ve got everythings to learn yet .and transpose to ideas i may give you a tip
but the question is. could we get harmony from chaos(because with petty theory we couldn't).who knows what this one will bring
http://www.mathjmendl.org/chaos/#intro

[Subversive Rob]

Well i'm sorry, next time I will remember to quote a 30,000 word thesis for you.


I'm quite sure that 30,000 words are not needed. It's just that if you intent to dismiss an idea of socialism for its inadequacy positing such a vague definition is hardly an advance.


By choosing a profession wehich suits you, rather than being forced into certain jobs by necessity. I do not consider this to be a particularly complex ideal.

What is necessity? It that necessity qua man made or in its natural capacity?


You clearly fail to understand the nature of a "utopia" in a socialist context, you also fail to understand the nature of socialism. Socialism is not a specific ideology like communism, it is a principal of ideals. For specific solutions to societies problems, you are forced to choose an ideology within the socialist spectrum

How can one fail to understand the nature of socialism? I view it as a concrete manifestation of the latent possibilities of capitalism with specific socio-economic properties.