Class Society Is the Root of Struggle.

[robob8706]

Basic leftism states that the social caste system that is class society is the root of class antagonisms. Such is apparent in feudalism, monarcism, and capitalism. All were EXPLOITIVE class societies. Socialism is a class society but it is not an EXPLOITIVE class society in that all private property is attained through true individual work. Now, I am a Marxist, no doubt, but my question is this. Since this is an example of how class society is not always exploitive, then shouldn't this be revised among marxist rhetoric?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Socialism is oppressive to the capitalist class.

[robob8706]

It is oppressive to the capitalist class in that capitalist activities are made illegal. BUt it's not like the socialists will be exploiting the labor of capitalists because that would be capitalism in itself.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Nobody says that there is necessarily exploitation in all class society. Normally they focus on the fact that whenever there are classes, there is one dominant class and one subordinate class. That' what defines them as classes. In socialism, the working class would be dominant class.

[bolshevik butcher]

surely though, eventually in a real socialist country there weould be no capitalist class. The USSR, China, and norht kore are and never were Socialist societies. The only socialist societiy was Russia (1917-1923)

[Essential Insignificance]

Basic leftism states that the social caste system that is class society is the root of class antagonisms. Such is apparent in feudalism, monarcism, and capitalism. All were EXPLOITIVE class societies. Socialism is a class society but it is not an EXPLOITIVE class society in that all private property is attained through true individual work. Now, I am a Marxist, no doubt, but my question is this. Since this is an example of how class society is not always exploitive, then shouldn't this be revised among marxist rhetoric?

You're wrong in claiming that socialism is not a society based on exploitation, estrangement or alienation. A class society in virtue of being a class society is based on unfair production and distribution of the material products that the given society produces -- dividedly. Each member of society, therefore, stands in relation to the means of production differently and unfairly.

You have made a wrong "diagnosis" in declaring that socialism isn't exploitative.


surely though, eventually in a real socialist country there weould be no capitalist class. The USSR, China, and norht kore are and never were Socialist societies. The only socialist societiy was Russia (1917-1923)

Perhaps a little haste with your judgment, but not totally unsubstantiated.

You're right in asserting that in a socialist society there wouldn't be a "capitalist class" as such, or more appropriately -- in name. They were (capitalists), generally, replaced by the "vanguard party" -- who had ownership and made all of the decisions in regards to the material production of society (in the 20th century).

However, I don't think the future will resemble the past.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 23 2004, 04:10 PM
surely though, eventually in a real socialist country there weould be no capitalist class. The USSR, China, and norht kore are and never were Socialist societies. The only socialist societiy was Russia (1917-1923)
Well, there was also the Paris Commune, parts of Loyalist Spain when still under control by CNT-FAI and P.O.U.M, there have been some collective societies, maybe not whole countries, but definately collective societies.

A socialist country will have a capitalist class, but will be overthrown and dominated by the working class, Karl Marx described the Paris Commune as the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", when the capitalist class is abolished and merged with the working class, thats when Communism comes along around then.

[no_logo]

I tend to believe that socialist society is most definitely exploitive, but be careful the terms used. I've seen the term oppress in place of exploit many times, and all though they are very nearly related, they are not equivalent or synonymous. Oppression is a more hate-related type of exploitation, while exploitation may happen entirely by accident... resulting from the system in existence (such as in either capitalism or socialism).

Anyhow, further to the point, i tend to agree that socialism is exploitive by nature. The fact that there are multiple classes intrinsically means that the means of production are unequally divided and the wealth is thereby unequally obtained (or at the very least it is unequally provided for the different classes). Socialism with only one class would be more-or-less communism... and thus it's evident that the fundamental difference between the two is the equal distribution of the means of production between all of the society, rather than by class.

Although it is a possible and plausible means of government, i would have to argue that once the socialist government has come that revolution is inevitable because there will be two classes, one to have and one to want. That level of disparity between those that own the means of production and those that do not will eventually lead to a class struggle great enough to perpetuate a revolution.