Communist Overthrow of Socialism

[jacobin1949]

Marx never really wrote in detail about history past the earliest stages of the socialist state- for good reason as that would have been utopian fantasy. However I'm curious about your opinions about the transition from socialism to communism. Marx says no class has every peacefully walked off the stage of history. Now technically the working class should want to be swept off the pages of history because their class is one of subjection- to be replaced by a classless society. Nevertheless the idea of such a major revolution being achieved so peacefully and without opposition seems to be an abnormality to the rest of Marxist theory. Without getting into sectarian fights over whats "genuinely" socialist lets assume for the sake of argument that we're talking about YOUR definition of a "Real" socialist state transforming into a "real" communist state.

[Dros]

That will obviously depend on the material situations of the time.

Perhaps the state will become limited as class contradictions and class antagonisms are resolved during late socialism and die off as power is concentrated in the hands of immediate workers councils.

Perhaps the state will "change" into a non-state communist orginizational system.

Perhaps it will be a violent transition whereby the masses of people cast off the state and create communism in some sort of cultural-revolutionesque transition.

Dunno, really. It is impossible to say what will happen without an understanding of the material conditions at that time.

[Marxist Napoleon]

I don't think violence will be necessary for the transition from socialism to communism. The process of the withering away of classes and the state begins with the victory of the socialist revolution. The proletariat is a special class, because it has the interests of human progress. During the socialist period, everyone will work according to their ability, and this will abolish the bourgeoisie. Everyone would be working class at this point, but the alienation of labor would begin to disappear, because workers would receive the fruits of their labor. Once all of society is proletarian, the class system can fall apart. Socialism is the time to deal with contradictions between classes, and the transition to communism will be smooth.

[Dros]

Originally posted by Marxist [email protected] 01, 2007 03:57 am
I don't think violence will be necessary for the transition from socialism to communism. The process of the withering away of classes and the state begins with the victory of the socialist revolution. The proletariat is a special class, because it has the interests of human progress. During the socialist period, everyone will work according to their ability, and this will abolish the bourgeoisie. Everyone would be working class at this point, but the alienation of labor would begin to disappear, because workers would receive the fruits of their labor. Once all of society is proletarian, the class system can fall apart. Socialism is the time to deal with contradictions between classes, and the transition to communism will be smooth.
Based on what? What will this look like? Before there was a socialist revolution, everybody thought socialism would go really smoothly. But Stalin's and Mao's contribution to theory based on historical experience showed that that was not the case (I'm talking about aggravated class struggle under socialism). I'm not saying it will be violent. All I'm saying is that there is no way to know.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ One thing I will take away from my days as a "tankie" is the post-revolution aggravation of the class struggle. The problem, though, is that Stalin and Mao identified this phenomenon with the wrong historical stage. :(

The question that lingers in my mind, thanks to ComradeRed getting me thinking on my "revolutionary stamocap" stuff (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65240&view=findpost&p=1292295858), is: is my so-called "socialist revolution" that ushers in "proletocracy" / DOTP really just a proletarian revolution, and that the real socialist revolution occurs after the DOTP?

Then again, on the other hand, that will depend primarily on who will be the underclass in the DOTP, if one were to assume that the bourgeois and petit-bourgeois classes are liquidated.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

The purpose of Dictatorship of the Proletariat is to eliminate the conditions causing class distinction. Through DotP- through the elimination of these conditions- the bourgeois/petit-bourgeois classes will no longer exist. Along with the conditions of bourgeois society, they will be eliminated. Thus, the DotP will "wither away", causing the existence of the state apparatus to come to an end, allowing for the formation of communist society.

However, DotP is not a state that can be "overthrown" or "abolished". If it is overthrown, it won't have yet served its purpose- it won't have completed its task. It will "wither away" when it's no longer necessary. The length of this necessity cannot be determined/predicted. However, it is not a state that can be "eliminated"- when it is no longer necessary (that is, when there is no longer a need for the state apparatus- when there are no longer threats to communist society, when the conditions existent causing the formation of threats, of class distinction are eliminated). Then, it will no longer be necessary. Then, it will "wither away". Thus, completing the stage required for communist society to be attained.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Why do you still equate the DOTP/"proletocracy" with socialism proper? :huh:

[Dros]

Originally posted by Jacob [email protected] 01, 2007 10:39 pm
^^^ One thing I will take away from my days as a "tankie" is the post-revolution aggravation of the class struggle. The problem, though, is that Stalin and Mao identified this phenomenon with the wrong historical stage. :(
what?!

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by Jacob [email protected] 01, 2007 07:31 pm
^^^ Why do you still equate the DOTP/"proletocracy" with socialism proper? :huh:
I don't. Socialism comes into existence during DotP. With DotP comes socialism. The "proletocracy" comes into existence following the revolution, following the seizure of the bourgeois state apparatus. Along with this (DotP), comes the necessity for socialism. I don't necessarily consider DotP and socialism to be the same thing. Socialism occurs as the "proletocracy" assumes control of of the means of production and all other enterprises- replacing bourgeois rule or "socializing" it. This is necessary in transforming the state apparatus to make way for the formation of communist society. While DotP and socialism certainly aren't the same, with DotP ultimately comes socialism. Socialism is a means of eliminating bourgeois relations, socializing the enterprises, which not only includes the means of production but everything along with it- the social relations, enterprises that were once private and not public (property, education, etc.) so socialism is necessary in regards to DotP.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Comrade Nadezhda+December 01, 2007 11:00 pm--> (Comrade Nadezhda @ December 01, 2007 11:00 pm)
Jacob [email protected] 01, 2007 07:31 pm
^^^ Why do you still equate the DOTP/"proletocracy" with socialism proper? :huh:
I don't. Socialism comes into existence during DotP. With DotP comes socialism. The "proletocracy" comes into existence following the revolution, following the seizure of the bourgeois state apparatus. Along with this (DotP), comes the necessity for socialism. I don't necessarily consider DotP and socialism to be the same thing. Socialism occurs as the "proletocracy" assumes control of of the means of production and all other enterprises- replacing bourgeois rule or "socializing" it. This is necessary in transforming the state apparatus to make way for the formation of communist society. While DotP and socialism certainly aren't the same, with DotP ultimately comes socialism. Socialism is a means of eliminating bourgeois relations, socializing the enterprises, which not only includes the means of production but everything along with it- the social relations, enterprises that were once private and not public (property, education, etc.) so socialism is necessary in regards to DotP. [/b]
That's still funny, though. :huh:

For me at least, the part where the "proletocracy assumes control of the means of production [etc.]" is still part of "proletocracy," not socialism. Even the retention of this control further into the future would still be part of "proletocracy" (as noted in my "revolutionary stamocap" thread, and I'm too lazy right to provide a link to that old thread)

Furthermore (IMO), perhaps my political definition of socialism is this: that point where the "vanguard" party no longer exists to exercise "hard" or "soft" leadership. The weakened state is still there, but the party isn't. As I implied above, the economic foundations of "proletocracy" and socialism proper are the same.

[sanpal]

Respected comrades! If you will not come to strong correct definition of left terminology you will doomed to have nonproductive talk.

Socialism is class society. Socialism can be bourgeois where the bourgeoisie is ruling class by means of the bourgeois-democratic state apparatus - DotB (modern social-democratic countries for example) and socialism can (could) be proletarian where the proletariat is ruling class by means of the proletarian-state apparatus - DotP where class of the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie are under control by the proletariat.

Economically it could be shown as co-existing of several economic sectors:

DotB -- 1) the private economic sector
2) the state economic sector

DotP -- 1) the private economic sector
2) the state economic sector
3) the communist economic sector created and developed under DotP protection

In the sectors (1) and (2) economy is based on capitalist mode of production and political-administrative State governing .
In the sector (3) it must be used planned economy i.e. non-market, or moneyless mode of production and self-governing working people within commune.

Proletarian revolution is revolutionary replacement of the bourgeois State machine (DotB) upon the proletarian State machine (DotP).

Communist evolution is gradually replacement of the sectors (1) and (2) upon the sector (3) as a result of peaceful economic competition between the sectors (1) and (2) in one side and the sector (3) in another side.
It has to lead to condition when sectors (1) and (2) will gradually disappear (the State gradually wither away) and communist sector (3) will increase up till World size.

I hope this point of view does not contradict marxism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Not at all (at least the traditional Marxist approach). You got me thinking there, especially since the "pension fund socialism" phenomenon in the developed countries (http://www.voiceoftheturtle.org/show_article.php?aid=321) mixes public ownership with bourgeois control. Try mixing "pension fund socialism" for the private sector with a more involved state sector, and you'll have the most complete form of "bourgeois socialism."

However, I think you should read more into monopoly capitalism and especially state monopoly capitalism. There are AT LEAST three other "Dot[]" possibilities within the monocap and/or stamocap bases:

DOTPB (petit-bourgeoisie, AKA fascism)
RDDOTPPB (Lenin's "revolutionary democracy" / "primitive stamocap")
"Dictatorship of the managers" (Managers are one of six classes in my analysis (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=72581))

I asserted above that socialism exists completely outside the framework of the "proletocracy," which is in charge of merely a "revolutionary stamocap" (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65240) base, which puts pressure on private capital property relations. This is because, under socialism proper, private capital property is already eliminated.

In turn, the worker-controlled socialist framework (as opposed to the manager-controlled variant) puts pressure on state capital property relations. [The managers may not have the incentive to develop the "communist economic sector," being content to rely exclusively on state capital property. A post-DOTM revolution would thus be needed, IF the managers had their way in the first place and became the dominant class before the working class.]

As you've read, I'm not a traditionalist, given this simple example of my assertion that there is a separate historical stage between modern capitalism and socialism. However, given your perspective and that of Comrade Nadezdha over in the fascism thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=71713&st=25), perhaps there isn't any (ie, both the DOTP and its bastardized DOTM variant actually still occur within a capitalist framework, just like fascism and Lenin's "primitive stamocap").