How to transfer to Communism after a revolution

[Zak]

From what I have read on the forums many people support a violent revolution to achieve Communism. My question is this: once you've achieved a revolution and defeated the capitalists how do you transfer into communism?

I understand that Socialism is a phase between the two, but for communists, unless I misunderstand you want a revolution and then, immidiately following, communism. How does this work, how do you eliminate social classes and the state, and then transfer the means of production to the workers.

How can this be done without a leadership class? How can a Communist society function without a state? How does it defend itself?

I understand the theory of Communism, but the actuall mechanics of it are unclear to me.

[Winter]

I feel the transfer from socialism to communism would take at least a century. During socialism, there is a leading class, the proletariat class. The revolution from capitalism would take us into socialism, then begins the dictatorship of the proletariat, where the proletarians become the ruling class. The elimination of social classes and the state would be a very gradual change in the societies social consciousness. We would teach our kids the ideals they must aspire towards until generations go by where finally the concept of capitalism is forgotten. Communism has no need to defend itself. I believe communism cannot come about until all the nations of the world are ready to become communist, thus there would be no states, no country to compete with, just one world. Hopefully that answered your questions.
~ Winter

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 11:09 AM


I understand that Socialism is a phase between the two, but for communists, unless I misunderstand you want a revolution and then, immidiately following, communism. How does this work, how do you eliminate social classes and the state, and then transfer the means of production to the workers.

How can this be done without a leadership class? How can a Communist society function without a state? How does it defend itself?

I understand the theory of Communism, but the actuall mechanics of it are unclear to me.
"I understand that Socialism is a phase between the two, but for communists, unless I misunderstand you want a revolution and then, immidiately following, communism."

A revolution by the Proletariat(Workers) and peasants will be followed by a transition phase known as socialism. The proletariat led by the most active and class-conscious segment of the workers will lead this transition, known as the dictatorship of the proletariat. This ofcourse will extend over a peroid of time, the ultimate aim being the abolition of antagonistic class interests in society(bourgeois and feudal). And abolishing the upper segment of society as a class. Of course this phase is justified by the threat of counter-revolution and external imperialist attack. There is no way to predict the form the dictatorship of the proletariat will take because the material conditions of each, and thus requirements for de-classing society, are different.
There is no 'leadership class' , whatever leading role is required is fulfilled by the most active, militant, class-conscious members of the working masses organized into a communist party. Once antagonistic classes dissappear, once antagonistic class interests disappear, then the state and repressive institutions are no longer required(in the meantime the repressive institutions are directed at the bourgeoisie), therefore the need for a formal state structure dissappears, and with it the need for a communist party in a guiding role.
Now to address a confusion displayed in your post, Communists do not advocate the immediate abolition of the state, that is fundamental tenet of Anarchism, on which basis Bakunin broke with the first international. Ofcourse as is evident, this is a utopian demand. The difference put simply is that Marxists and Communists believe that the state acts in the interests of a particular class and seek to divert it to forward the intersts of the workers. The Anarchists however object to the state of philosophical grounds, treating the state not as the expression of class interests but as an external concept and an evil unto itself. Whether this is infantilism is evident.
As for defence of the state, this is not solely carried out by a standing army, but by the armed workers themselves, organized into citizen's militias. Thus granting the revolutionary state a huge advantage in terms of defence. The general populace thus active in the defence of the revolution.
Any furthur questions i will be glad to answer.

[Zak]

Thank you for the answering my questions. So Communists do believe in a transition period. I guess the problem in Russia was that the "most active and class-conscious segment of the workers " never steped down from the leadership position, or that they wern't workers at all.


So do Anarchists have a thoery of what to do after the state is immidately abolished?

[Storming Heaven]

I guess the problem in Russia was that the "most active and class-conscious segment of the workers " never steped down from the leadership position, or that they wern't workers at all.

Kinda true in a way, but I don't think it was quite as simple as that. Initially, when the revolution first started out, it was a good example of what a Socialist society might be like. However, the revolution, Russia was invaded by 14 capitalist countries. In the ensuring war, millions of Communists were killed and the nation's infrastructure was destroyed. This economic damage in turn resulted in a bureaucratic counter-revolution, and by the end of the 1930s the soviets (workers councils which sprung up during the February revolution) ceased to exist in any meaningful form.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 06:57 AM
Thank you for the answering my questions. So Communists do believe in a transition period. I guess the problem in Russia was that the "most active and class-conscious segment of the workers " never steped down from the leadership position, or that they wern't workers at all.



What happened in Russia was much more complicated, for a variety of reasons. I have answered this query somewhere so i will post my answer in that thread. If you have any difficulties or confusions please state so and i will be glad to clear it up:


During the war, due to the high losses suffered in the initial stages of the war, a lot of good communists gave their lives defending themselves against the fascist threat. The focus was not on the ideological clarity and quality of the party cadres but on the war and subsequent reconstruction. Therefore a lot of subservient elements had managed to infiltrate into the party. The leader of these subservent elements was Khruschev. After Stalin's death, and the reconstruction, due to lack of vigilance within the party these elements had found top posts within the party. So much so that Khruschev became a contender for leadership.
During that time tensions with the U.S were at their peak, Stalin died, leaving two contenders for leadership of the party, Molotov and Khruschev. Molotov representing the Marxist-Leninist faction and loyal to communism. At that point the U.S was stronger militarily and fearing that Molotov's hard-line Marxist-Leninist orientation would accelerate a conflict, Khruschev was elected. One of Khruschev's tactics to gain control and sideline the Marxist-Leninist faction within the party was the 'secret speech' at the 20th congress of the CPSU(B), where a personla slanderous attack upon Stalin was made. Of course needless to say the Trotskyites in Mexico and the U.S were overjoyed. Consequently Khruschev gained control of the party and most of the Marxist-Leninist faction was sidelined with Molotov himself sent to look after a factory iin a godforsaken corner of Russia.
Thus Revisionism took hold over the soviet union. In response to this speech, after extensive polemics the Chinese under Mao Tsetung and Albanians under Enver Hoxha, broke with the soviets. This is commonly referred to as the 'sino-soviet' split. The Chinese and Albanians defending Stalin and denouncing revisionism. Mao in his extensive polemics with Khruschev condemned Revisionism and correctly stated that it would lead to the re-emergence of capitalism. His prediction came true. Khruschev himself was ousted by his protege Brezhnevm who continued on the road to capitalist restoration. This trend crystallized under Gorbachev's policy of 'perestroika', which essentially allowed private property and holdings. Thus Mao was proved correct and the entire soviet economy came crashing down. Now Russia's economy is smaller than that of Norway!
However, China too succumbed to revisionism albeit due to a different reason. Mao instituted a 'cultural revolution' where subversive elements from the Chinese communist party were to be purged. However that movement was hijacked by zealous red guards and the ultra-leftist faction of the CPC and led to amny mistakes being committed. Due the severity and over-zealousness of the ultra-leftist actions and mistakes, the backlash was strong. Banking upon these errors the Right-deviationist faction of the party under Deng Xiaoping took control of China. And instituted 'Market-socialism'. Thus ever since China has been on the road of revisionism.

[viva le revolution]

Thus it becomes evident, that in the process dubbed 'De-stalinization' actually de-leninization' and 'bourgeoification' took place. ie. in the course of 'de-stalinization' they actually abandoned class-struggle! Of course needless to say Khruschev's policies wrere welcomed by the west. To elucidate this point, in 1991, after the collapse of the soviet union, the SWP rejoicing published the lines, 'communism is dead, now the real socialists can take over'. They've been doing a bang up job so far.

[Zak]

Thanks Viva that's a very well thought out summary of things in Russia and China. So do you think that Stalin helped or hurt the socialists in Russia? And do you consider he and Mao to be good Socialist leaders?

[Zak]

Sorry I wasn't clear there. What I mean to say is I kindof thought that Communism in Russia died once Stalin took over, as I don't really think he had the people's or worker's interests in mind. What you wrote addresses the collapse of the Soviet Union.

[TC]

I understand that Socialism is a phase between the two, but for communists, unless I misunderstand you want a revolution and then, immidiately following, communism.

Socialism is communism with a state, communism is socialism without a state.




How does this work, how do you eliminate social classes and the state, and then transfer the means of production to the workers.

No, the workers take control of the means of production during the revolution against capitalism, they then control the means of production and use the socialist state to enforce and defend that control. Eliminating the capitalist class and the capitalist state and taking control of the means of production are one in the same, you can't have one without the other.


How can this be done without a leadership class?

The initial revolution and control of production is done with organizers, fewer specialist organizers are required the less opposition workers face.


How can a Communist society function without a state? How does it defend itself?

Socialist societies only theoretically enter a stage of stateless communism after all capitalist opposition has been eliminated globally, not when they're still competing with capitalist states. When everyone in the world is a worker, workers society doesn't need a state because it doesn't need to defend itself as its eliminated all potential threats.


I understand the theory of Communism, but the actuall mechanics of it are unclear to me.

Socialist societies would theoretically enter into stateless communism when all capitalist states have been eliminated as the state organization that had been required to defend the worker's control of the means of production, would become an unnessessary expense and would be disbanded for practical reasons. Landlocked nations don't generally have navys because they never have to worry about defending themselves from a naval attack, it would be pointless. The same idea applies if there aren't any armed capitalists left.


So do Anarchists have a thoery of what to do after the state is immidately abolished?

no...they just wait for another state to move in and restablish order...which is why every anarchist revolution has been crushed in a matter months and they've never had much impact.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 04:45 PM
Thanks Viva that's a very well thought out summary of things in Russia and China. So do you think that Stalin helped or hurt the socialists in Russia? And do you consider he and Mao to be good Socialist leaders?
comrade Stalin was a good Marxist-Leninist. Undoubtedly it was his policies that ensured that Russia had social service statistics greater than any capitalist country in the world. Mao too was a great Marxist-Leninist, feudal,peasant China enjoyed leaps and bounds in terms of education and gender equality in a time unparalelled anywhere else. Sure mistakes were made but overall both were great Marxist-Leninists and undoubtedly had worker's interests in mind. One needs only to take a look at workd published by these two to have a clear understanding of Marxism-Leninism and every work is published with the intention to futhur Marxism. In the end, uptill Stalin's time in the USSR it was socialist, under Khruschev the USSR became revisionist and began a retardation in social evolution, shifting back towards capitalism.
China under Mao was socialist but under Deng Xiaoping it turned revisionist. Undoubtedly these twp furthured the cause of Marxism-Leninism. Of course in terms of results it is impossible to look at the USSR collapse, divorcing it from the collapse of socialism. Both are interlinked inseparably. As Marx stated that it is possible for the socialist economy to revert back to capitalism, but it willk court disaster. Case in point: Modern Russia. To separate the collapse of the USSR and socialism there is ignoring the fundamental tenet that the economy has an effect on social relations and development. If that were the case, then USSR under Khruschev wouldn't have it's economy stagnate and Gorbachev's 'perestroika' wouldn't lead to disaster. So this assertion is fundamentally incorrect.

[Xian]

It looks good on paper doesn't it?

As we have seen, the is a bumpy road. Very bumpy.

The problem with socialism is that it came in a world of globalization. For socialism to work with globalization, it would have to be supported and protected around the globe, which is very hard to do if the superpowers are capitalist.

So it would have to happen inside superpowers (UK, US, mostly), and then their governments would fall, and it would lead to leftist victory around the world.

Unfortunately, the majority of the people in the US and UK are supportive of their governments, even though they do get angry from time to time.

For example, why are so many young Americans becoming capitalists? Why has hip-hop, an art originally intended to expose the hardship and struggle of the poor, turned into a "$-worshiping" novelty? Why are there no revolutionaries in the 'hood? Why are there only hustlers? Why do all the teenagers spend all that money on crap? Why don't they care that all the tags say, "Made in Indonesia"?
The reason is: Because they don't have to. They have enough, and more. Those who don't have enough, work towards getting it, no matter how dismal it seems. That's the poison that we have been fed. Capitalism waves $$$ in your face and then tells you, "It's out there, but it's a rat race, so you better get going!" They don't care why they chase it. They just care that they get it.

But will things change? Yes. They will, but it takes time, understanding, and love. Love now, socialism soon.
~peace~

[Comrade Corinna]

Didn't Lenin say that eventually the Communist 'State' would be accustomed to everyone governing at some point?

[anomaly]

Yes, Lenin said a lot of things that later proved inaccurate! :lol:

After the revolution, I think we should start working towards communism right away. That is, as soon as the dust has settled, localized workers begin building communes. There is no need to build up a state, even if it is proletarian.

Also, a dictatorship of the proletariat does not neccesarily mean a 'state'. As I've said previously, it could just be that the proletariat has the guns and the bourgeoisie does not. If that is the case, the bourgeoisie has a clear choice: assimilate into communist society or cease to exist.