Lenin's conception of Socialism

[BobKKKindle$]

In 'The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It' Lenin defined Socialism as follows:

"Socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly."

What exactly does Lenin mean by "the interests of the whole people" in this definition? Does this mean that deformed/degenerated workers states were not socialist, due to the lack of democracy and the privileges available to the ruling stratum? Under this definition, is there any society which has existed, which could be considered Socialist?

Doubtless Jacob Richter will disagree these this definition - what are your main objections?

[Tower of Bebel]

The USSR was never socialist (according to this formula), since during the life of Lenin Russia wasn't completely state-capitalist and the civil war didn't do any good to the people. Even when all 5-year plans were 'finished' (I think the last one got cancelled because of the war) Russia was state-capitalist, yet the State was acting in it's own interest, not in the interest of the people.

[Zurdito]

you have to read the quote in its context:



That capitalism in Russia has also become monopoly capitalism is sufficiently attested by the examples of the Produgol, the Prodamet, the Sugar Syndicate, etc. This Sugar Syndicate is an object-lesson in the way monopoly capitalism develops into state-monopoly capitalism.
And what is the state? It is an organisation of the ruling class — in Germany, for instance, of the Junkers and capitalists. And therefore what the German Plekhanovs (Scheidemann, Lensch, and others) call "war-time socialism" is in fact war-time state-monopoly capitalism, or, to put it more simply and clearly, war-time penal servitude for the workers and war-time protection for capitalist profits.
Now try to substitute for the Junker-capitalist state, for the landowner-capitalist state, a revolutionary-democratic state, i.e., a state which in a revolutionary way abolishes all privileges and does not fear to introduce the fullest democracy in a revolutionary way. You will find that, given a really revolutionary-democratic state, state- monopoly capitalism inevitably and unavoidably implies a step, and more than one step, towards socialism!
<A onmouseover="window.status=' 25 . 362 . v25zz99h '" onmouseout="window.status=''">For if a huge capitalist undertaking becomes a monopoly, it means that it serves the whole nation. If it has become a state monopoly, it means that the state (i.e., the armed organisation of the population, the workers and peasants above all, provided there is revolutionary democracy) directs the whole undertaking. In whose interest?
Either in the interest of the landowners and capitalists, in which case we have not a revolutionary-democratic, but a reactionary-bureaucratic state, an imperialist republic.
Or in the interest of revolutionary democracy—and then it is a step towards socialism.
For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly.
There is no middle course here. The objective process of development is such that it is impossible to advance from monopolies (and the war has magnified their number, role and importance tenfold) without advancing towards socialism.


This is in fact just an expansion of Marx's argument that capitalism abolishes private property, and in that sense is a step towards socialism.

Lenin is arguing against the Mensheviks and SR's who think that state-capitalism under the bourgeoisie can be progressive.

He si arguing that state-capitalism/monopoly capitalism - i.e. a centrally planned economy which has abolsihed private property - already exists, and that the only step forward is for the masses to take control of the state itself, not to argue for more control by the bourgeois state over private property as a long-term strategy.

Of course this doesn't rule out using those immediate demands as part of a transitional programme.

[Vanguard1917]

What exactly does Lenin mean by "the interests of the whole people" in this definition? Does this mean that deformed/degenerated workers states were not socialist, due to the lack of democracy and the privileges available to the ruling stratum? Under this definition, is there any society which has existed, which could be considered Socialist?



No. A socialist society depends on workers' management and regulation of the economy. Lenin understood this very clearly; he had no illusions whatsoever neither in nationalised property nor the market. For Lenin, conscious workers' planning is absolutely vital if socialism is to become a living reality.

This is how he put it in 1918, in The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government:

'Until workers' control has become a fact, until the advanced workers have organised and carried out a victorious and ruthless crusade against the violators of this control, or against those who are careless in matters of control, it will be impossible to pass from the first step (from workers' control) to the second step towards socialism, ie, to pass on to a workers' regulation of production.'
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/mar/x03.htm

[RebelDog]

'Until workers' control has become a fact, until the advanced workers have organised and carried out a victorious and ruthless crusade against the violators of this control, or against those who are careless in matters of control, it will be impossible to pass from the first step (from workers' control) to the second step towards socialism, ie, to pass on to a workers' regulation of production.'

Lofty words but sadly just hollow words. Lenin and the Bolshevik leadership had no interest in anything but party control of the state and production. They actively put down workers self management and took tyrannical control of the state apparatus and used it to ruthlessly protect their own position. I would be a Leninist if these words had any sincerity or were a workable model that put us on the road to communism. The Bolsheviks had control and were never going to give it up for workers control anymore than they would a new monarchy.


This is in fact just an expansion of Marx's argument that capitalism abolishes private property, and in that sense is a step towards socialism.

But it never has been a step toward socialism. For the USSR it was (ultimately) a step toward advanced capitalism.

[Dros]

I think China and the USSR were socialist by that definition.

[chegitz guevara]

I think that any definition that fits into a single sentence is necessarily deficient and not terribly helpful.

[Die Neue Zeit]

No. A socialist society depends on workers' management and regulation of the economy. Lenin understood this very clearly; he had no illusions whatsoever neither in nationalised property nor the market. For Lenin, conscious workers' planning is absolutely vital if socialism is to become a living reality.

This is how he put it in 1918, in The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government:

'Until workers' control has become a fact, until the advanced workers have organised and carried out a victorious and ruthless crusade against the violators of this control, or against those who are careless in matters of control, it will be impossible to pass from the first step (from workers' control) to the second step towards socialism, ie, to pass on to a workers' regulation of production.'
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/mar/x03.htm

But on what basis will this "workers' regulation" occur? On the basis of still-existent wage slavery? That is the difference between proletocratic capitalism, even at its peak, and proper socialism based on labour-time vouchers.



Here's a "monopoly" problem:

If you're gonna eventually have an economy based on the abolition of wage slavery, if even one non-wage enterprise crops out, would that not technically result in the economy not having a state-capitalist monopoly? I'm being semantical here, but I think there's a huge difference between "state-capitalist monopoly" and "state-monopoly capitalism," since the latter could imply merely a state monopoly over all capitalist relations. The notion that that "state-capitalist monopoly" could "evolve" into a new mode of production is quite questionable today.

[Vanguard1917]

But on what basis will this "workers' regulation" occur? On the basis of still-existent wage slavery? That is the difference between proletocratic capitalism, even at its peak, and proper socialism based on labour-time vouchers.


Well, as long as economic scarcity persists society is going to need a way to regulate people's consumption. The difference under workers' management is that this is done through conscious planning by the workers themselves, as opposed to the spontaneous and chaotic market mechanism which regulates consumption in capitalist society.

As i understand it, once material scarcity is abolished and humanity is freed from necessity through the development of the productive forces - only then will the need to regulate consumption become altogether superfluous.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Could that conscious planning not be done with labour-time vouchers? I mean, even Marx suggested that these things could be used under "economic scarcity" (I'm not a big believer in that, BTW - half of that concept is utter BS, given the overproduction of food).

[Hopefully there'll be some developments in my Learning thread question on these vouchers.]

[gilhyle]

I happen to be reading some Engels at the moment so I am going to quote him: "a republc like any other form of government is determined by what composes it; so long as it is the form of bourgoies rule, it is quite as hostile to us as any monarchy....hence it is a gartuitous illusion to treat it as an essentially socialist form, to entrust it, while it is dominated by the bourgeoisie, with socialist tasks." P.276 MECW 50. Engels point was that the form of the State does not indicate its class nature. We must ask which class dominates it.

While that method is correct, it is a notable feature of the Russian Revolution that the Workers State came to be identified with certain State forms - particularly the Soviet.

It is very tempting for Marxists, following Lenin, to fetishise that State form and see it as the guarantee of a socialist state. In Lenin's writings you will find conjunctural writings apparently validating that approach.

But can we generalise from the specific moment ? Does it remain as true today that the soviet form is the litmus test of the workers state ? Would Lenin have applied the same test in different circumstances ?

I suggest he would have adopted Engels approach, which is harder to apply, less clear cut but more Marxist - namely that it is a matter of determining which class dominates the state, not a matter of listing its forms of organisation.

History may well have some surprises in store for us yet on the forms of organisation of the workers state.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ What do soviets have to do with any particular mode of production? :confused:

bobkindles asked a question pertaining to the socialist mode of production itself after quoting Lenin in a defense of continued wage slavery.

One particular organ of workers' power that interests me more is the factory committee (nowadays I call similar organs "workplace committees"). Yes, the Civil War necessitated the suppression of such organs (plus the transformation of soviets into Party organs), but necessity isn't virtuous.

Then, to top things off, there are citizens' referenda to consider, especially for major laws. Any comments on those?

In any event, you are correct. The "Supreme Soviet" was little more than a rubber stamp for the "No-Party State" (Moshe Lewin) under Stalin and his successors.




China is providing an example to capitalists the world over fo a kind neo-keynesian planning system, which is effective at protecting the national bourgeoisie against competing blocs, but which doesn't really have any emphasis on redistributionism. Argentina and Russia are also good examples of this. Expect to see the UK and USA going that way soon, and expect the bourgeoisie to lecture us on the "excesses" of the "bad capitalists" and the "speculators" - them neoliberals - who killed the golden goose and had no sense of "patriotism/sustainability".

We've already seen this begin with Brown steppin in to nationalise Northern Rock. Not a bad thing in itself - we must fight to keep Northern Rock nationalsied - but let's just be aware that the cpaitalists themselves will soon be stepping up their demands for the state to step in and pass the cost of their msitakes onto us - in Marx's words, "socialisation of risk". The "concession" they will grant will be that they'll drop the "aggressive" neo-liberal discourse and make vague promises for a more planned economy.

We must be ready to fight this. Broad opposition to "neo-liberalism" doesn't prepare us for the non neo-liberal future.

Actually, this new state capitalism is bigger than you think (Boston Globe):

State Inc. (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/03/16/state_inc/)



The problem with you Trots is that you don't read enough Wilhelm Liebknecht and Karl Kautsky:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism
http://www.marxists.org/archive/liebknecht-w/1896/08/our-congress.htm

"Nobody has combatted State Socialism more than we German Socialists; nobody has shown more distinctively than I, that State Socialism is really State capitalism!"

History has "begun" once more (so much for Francis Fukuyama's BS).

[gilhyle]

As much as I sympathise with your remarks about Kautsky, the other name on your list should have been Bebel rather than WIlhelm Liebknecht

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Why so? :confused:

[nanovapor]

:laugh:
hahaha, wow what a cool quote by comrade Stalin. You know I read in a Nietzsche book that great men are very funny, laugh a lot, and joke a lot. Indeed. And that quote is so truthful, free marketeers would sell us their rope on ebay after we hang them

nanovapor




“When we hang the capitalists they will sell us the rope” -Joseph Stalin

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.geocities.com/antagonism1/bordbuik.html#f5


Bordiga argued that 'the communist programme' had been laid down by Marx and Engels in 1848 and that the role of contemporary communists was simply to preserve and propagate it intact. Except on the key issues of the party and democracy, Bordiga did in fact stick very closely to the views of Marx and Engels, including their dubious positions such as support for national liberation movements and for the idea expressed in the Communist Manifesto for a period of state capitalist development between the capture of political power by the working class and the final establishment of socialism. His writings on economics and history were strictly Marxist, although those on politics reflected, even more forcefully than previously, his earlier views on the elitist nature and role of the party. He also brought out well the fact that, for Marx and Engels, socialist society involved the disappearance of money, buying and selling, wages, the market and all other exchange categories.

Bordiga pointed out that Marx had distinguished three stages after the capture of political power by the working class - transition stage, lower stage of communism, higher stage of communism - the last two of which were both to be non-commercial and non-Monetary:

The following schema can serve as a re-capitulation of our difficult subject... :

Transition stage: the proletariat has conquered power and must withdraw legal protection from the non-proletarian classes, precisely because it cannot 'abolish' them in one go. This means that the proletarian state controls an economy of which a part, a decreasing part it is true, knows commercial distribution and even forms of private disposition of the product and the means of production (whether these be concentrated or scattered). Economy not yet socialist, a transitional economy.

Lower stage of communism: or, if you want, socialism. Society has already come to dispose of the products in general and allocates them to its members by means of a plan for 'rationing'. Exchange and money have ceased to perform this function. It cannot be conceded to Stalin that simple exchange without money although still in accordance with the law of value could be a perspective for arriving at communism: on the contrary that would mean a sort of relapse into the barter system. The allocation of products starts rather from the centre and takes place without any equivalent in exchange. Example: when a malaria epidemic breaks out, quinine is distributed free in the area concerned, but in the proportion of a single tube per inhabitant.

In this stage, apart from the obligation to work continuing, the recording of the labour time supplied and the certificate attesting this are necessary, i.e. the famous labour voucher so much discussed for a hundred years. The voucher cannot be accumulated and any attempt to do so will involve the loss of a given amount of labour without restitution of any equivalent. The law of value is buried (Engels: society no longer attributes a 'value' to products).

Higher stage of communism which can also without hesitation be called full socialism. The productivity of labour has become such that neither constraint nor rationing are any longer necessary (except for pathological cases) as a means of avoiding the waste of products and human energy. Freedom for all to take for consumption. Example: the pharmacies distribute quinine freely and without restriction.5

In other words, for Bordiga, both stages of socialist or communist society (sometimes distinguished as 'socialism' and 'communism') were characterised by the absence of money, the market, and so on, the difference between them being that in the first stage labour-time vouchers would be used to allocate goods to people, while in full socialism this could be abandoned in favour of full free access. This view distinguished Bordiga from other Leninists, and especially the Trotskyists, who tended (and still tend) to telescope the first two stages and so have money and the other exchange categories surviving into 'socialism'. Bordiga, as we shall see in the next section, would have none of this. No society in which money, buying and selling and the rest survived could be regarded as either socialist or communist; these exchange categories would die out before the socialist rather than the communist stage was reached.

[Herman]

According to the circumstances Lenin found himself in, socialism, and this was believed by most socialists of that time, that state-ownership was socialism, as the state obtained a monopoly of all industries, in the name of the people.

Now, how can a socialist economy work then? What is socialism, today, in the 21st century? What institutions, what organizations should be created to bring socialism?

The keywords are "social ownership". "Social" implies "by society itself".

The greatest mistake by communists and socialists alike, is to equate nationalization to socialism. This is not so. In fact, total state-ownership results in a great increase in bureaucracy, lack of transparency and undemocratic features. This is the case of the Soviet Union.

The economy, just like the political field, has to be outright democratic to be "social". It must also be independent from the state, up to a certain point. Giving worker's the freedom to produce what they want, when the want or how they want is a basic precondition to social ownership, or socialism. In other words, a division of society is necessary. Let's say, for example the following:

1. The State: An entity in itself. It holds ownership of some industries, not all (such as pharmacies, hospitals... healthcare in general).

2. The Industry: Owned by worker's, trade unions or other institutions. The relationship between worker's and trade unions is a special one. For example, despite that there can exist worker's control, say in the construction industry, the chosen representatives of these worker's (accountable to them by recall) might take unpopular decisions, measures or the like. Trade Unions should continue to be organizations dedicated to the defense of worker's rights. They may also help in establishing a formal contract with the state, in order to organize the necessary commodities to be distributed according to need.

3. Civil Society / Consumers: Although worker's control guarantees a democratic economy, it does not guarantee quality products. Say an electric toothbrush isn't built properly. How can the consumer complain to the worker's who made it? They cannot, unless the proper Consumer's Institutions are created. The defense of consumer's rights should be priority as well. Rubbish products are useless to everyone. Criticism of production shouldn't be solely voiced by the state or other worker's. Those who consume the products should be able to raise their concerns. These consumer's insutitutions should be absolutely democratic. Consumer's choose their representatives to talk with the representatives of the worker's in said industry.

These three must hold a binding contract. They must agree to certain criteria. None of them should be forced through coercion or violence. The clauses in said contracts should be left to the representatives to decide upon.

For example:

1. The following parties acknowledge the importance of delivering X products to X sector of society.

2. The representatives of X industry will create and deliver X tons of grain for X sector of society every X years/months/weeks.

Something along these lines.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Thank you for addressing my monopoly problem, but as I asked above to other posters, on what basis would compensation be made? [No matter your "crust"/superstructural concerns above, without addressing the core issue of this, you will still have capitalist economic relations - albeit without individual capitalists.]


The Industry: Owned by worker's, trade unions or other institutions. The relationship between worker's and trade unions is a special one. For example, despite that there can exist worker's control, say in the construction industry, the chosen representatives of these worker's (accountable to them by recall) might take unpopular decisions, measures or the like. Trade Unions should continue to be organizations dedicated to the defense of worker's rights. They may also help in establishing a formal contract with the state, in order to organize the necessary commodities to be distributed according to need.

Why not abolish trade unions altogether and replace them with non-bureaucratic workplace committees, like the factory committees in Russia?


Civil Society / Consumers: Although worker's control guarantees a democratic economy, it does not guarantee quality products. Say an electric toothbrush isn't built properly. How can the consumer complain to the worker's who made it? They cannot, unless the proper Consumer's Institutions are created. The defense of consumer's rights should be priority as well. Rubbish products are useless to everyone. Criticism of production shouldn't be solely voiced by the state or other worker's. Those who consume the products should be able to raise their concerns. These consumer's institutions should be absolutely democratic. Consumer's choose their representatives to talk with the representatives of the worker's in said industry.

Communal councils :)

[Herman]

Why not abolish trade unions altogether and replace them with non-bureaucratic workplace committees, like the factory committees in Russia?

They should be abolished, but I imagine worker's have used trade unions for so long that they've grown fond of them. It's their (if anything) defense mechanism, and abolishing them would infuriate many. Placing a role to them gives them purpose and improves state-worker's relations. Of course, workplace committees are important too.


Communal councils

I've always thought of these to be in the "political field" rather than the "economic field", but I guess they could work just as fine. Nonetheless, institutions for the protection of consumers should still exist.


on what basis would compensation be made?

This is picturing a scenario where there is one country which is socialist amidst a sea of capitalist economies: Compensation comes from the profit that the industries make, which is redistributed to the workers. The state should guarantee of course minimum wages (although this would be useless as the profit gained would be more than the amount of wages that a state can guarantee).

[Led Zeppelin]

According to the circumstances Lenin found himself in, socialism, and this was believed by most socialists of that time, that state-ownership was socialism, as the state obtained a monopoly of all industries, in the name of the people.

Erm, no, they didn't consider state-ownership to equal socialism, if they did then nothing would have been socialized and the system of "war communism", i.e., redistribution of goods by the state, wouldn't have been put in place.

The majority of Bolsheviks considered the economic system of "war communism", which consisted of distribution of goods by the state, to be socialism and the basis of communism, which in effect it is. Though they were proven wrong to implement it at the time by reality; the system wasn't efficient and didn't work with the lacking material conditions of the country at the time. Trotsky argued that the same system could only work with an abundance of production, that is, when scarcity is eliminated, and his argument still stands today.

When Lenin spoke of state-capitalist monopoly he was speaking of it in the same sense; it was a means to an end, not an end in itself. Also, the type of capitalism he was referring to was very different from the classical sense of the term. He was referring to the German system at the time of Bismarck, which had a lot of elements of "socialism" in it, such as the nationalization of production, heavy investments in the economy by the state etc.

The USSR actually reverted back to the economic system of war communism a few years after it was initially abandoned, and it seemed as though Trotsky was proven wrong...though in the long-run he was proven right. They abandoned it again soon. That type of system simply can't compete with the most advanced form of capitalism. It only works when there is a material basis for it to work.

[Herman]

Erm, no, they didn't consider state-ownership to equal socialism, if they did then nothing would have been socialized and the system of "war communism", i.e., redistribution of goods by the state, wouldn't have been put in place.

State-ownership was seen as a way to achieve socialism, until complete ownership by the state. This is why social-democrats of that time, and later on, nationalized vital industries. It was not by accident. That was seen as a way to achieve socialism. The same happened in the USSR during the so called "War Communism" and after the NEP.


The majority of Bolsheviks considered the economic system of "war communism", which consisted of distribution of goods by the state, to be socialism and the basis of communism, which in effect it is.

They did. It is not socialism however. "War Communism" was very similar to what Britain, France or Germany did during the war (State organizing war efforts, shifting a civilian economy to war economy). It was a means to meet the demands of war. That's why bourgeois historians call what happened to Britain, for example, "State Socialism" (even though they are wrong).

German socialists were those who did not support "State Socialism" (and in their case, they were right). They saw an autocratic state direct war efforts towards an imperialist agenda. The argument goes, however, that if a bourgeois state owns an industry, it is not socialism. If a worker's state does it, it is socialism. The problem arises in what is a "worker's state".

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ LZ: Just out of curiosity, didn't the Bolsheviks abolish money during war communism?

90&#37; of all wages were "paid with goods" (payment in form of goods, rather than money) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Communism)

I'm just not sure if the "payment in goods" (no wage slavery) was based on labour-time vouchers (which is socialist), on just plain barter (which is not socialist), or on just plain government fiat (which is not socialist, either).

In any event, it's surprising to see an ortho-Trot not buy into the conventional Trotskyist definition of socialism, which like Lenin's is erroneous (as I pointed out in my "Lenin's error" thread).


The USSR actually reverted back to the economic system of war communism a few years after it was initially abandoned, and it seemed as though Trotsky was proven wrong...though in the long-run he was proven right. They abandoned it again soon. That type of system simply can't compete with the most advanced form of capitalism. It only works when there is a material basis for it to work.

Huh? I don't think so. :confused:

The Stalinist system you referred to operated on a very monetary basis, and had wage slavery. No matter how much typical Trots called for political revolution at the top to automatically make it "socialist," wage slavery is the very basis of the capitalist mode of production (or whatever other non-socialist, non-slave, non-feudal, non-Asiatic mode of production you have out there, per my "Multiple modern modes of production" thread).

[Led Zeppelin]

State-ownership was seen as a way to achieve socialism, until complete ownership by the state. This is why social-democrats of that time, and later on, nationalized vital industries. It was not by accident. That was seen as a way to achieve socialism. The same happened in the USSR during the so called "War Communism" and after the NEP.

Erm, no, the same did not happen in the USSR.

State-ownership was only seen as a way to achieve socialism by reformists and social-democrats, and only the left-wing of those.

The USSR didn't just nationalize the economy during "war communism" (in fact it was nationalized shortly after the revolution), they also socialized it, which is the key difference between a Marxist and a reformist attitude towards the issue.

Socializing means abolishing the profit motive in the economic system and establishing a planned economic system.


They did. It is not socialism however. "War Communism" was very similar to what Britain, France or Germany did during the war (State organizing war efforts, shifting a civilian economy to war economy). It was a means to meet the demands of war. That's why bourgeois historians call what happened to Britain, for example, "State Socialism" (even though they are wrong).

Once again, it wasn't similar at all. There was no planned economy in the UK, France or Germany, i.e., there was no socialization of the economic system.

Private capitalists, that is, the bourgeoisie, still had all the economic power.


The argument goes, however, that if a bourgeois state owns an industry, it is not socialism. If a worker's state does it, it is socialism. The problem arises in what is a "worker's state".

That's not how the argument goes, the argument goes; are the means of production socialized or not? State-ownership does not imply socialization, just look at how the NS or PTT Post were run.


^^^ LZ: Just out of curiosity, didn't the Bolsheviks abolish money during war communism?

Yes, but they were forced to bring it back soon after.


I'm just not sure if the "payment in goods" (no wage slavery) was based on labour-time vouchers (which is socialist), on just plain barter (which is not socialist), or on just plain government fiat (which is not socialist, either).

They received coupons with which they acquired goods.


In any event, it's surprising to see an ortho-Trot not buy into the conventional Trotskyist definition of socialism, which like Lenin's is erroneous (as I pointed out in my "Lenin's error" thread).

The "conventional Trotskyist definition of socialism" is exactly what I described. Besides, it's not the "conventional Trotskyist definition", it's the "conventional Marxist definition", one which Lenin also shared.

The problem with Lenin is that he wrote about the same subject differently at different times, he needed to do so to counter the prevailing "arguments" in favor of, or opposed to, the subject at hand. This why so many people are able to take Lenin's position out of historical context and ascribe ideas to him which weren't his at all.

You're doing the same thing.


Huh? I don't think so. :confused:

The Stalinist system you referred to operated on a very monetary basis, and had wage slavery.

You misread what I wrote:


The USSR actually reverted back to the economic system of war communism a few years after it was initially abandoned, and it seemed as though Trotsky was proven wrong...though in the long-run he was proven right. They abandoned it again soon.
Bold added.

By "soon" I meant a matter of months.

There's an interesting chapter about this subject in The Revolution Betrayed. If you want to learn something besides the opinions of others about what Trotsky's position was on these matters, I suggest reading him.

[Herman]

Erm, no, the same did not happen in the USSR.

State-ownership was only seen as a way to achieve socialism by reformists and social-democrats, and only the left-wing of those.

The USSR didn't just nationalize the economy during "war communism" (in fact it was nationalized shortly after the revolution), they also socialized it, which is the key difference between a Marxist and a reformist attitude towards the issue.

Socializing means abolishing the profit motive in the economic system and establishing a planned economic system.

You haven't really given any difference between nationalization and socialization. Just because individual capitalists do not own factories does not mean it is socialism. A planned economic system does not equate to state-ownership, which is the same as nationalization of all industries under state control. This is not the way to socialism, nor should it be. There was something the Bolsheviks did right, and it happened right after the overthrow of the provisional government, and that is worker's committees ownership of factories. They were abolished as a necessary evil to organize the war effort against the whites.

Socialization means socializing power - giving power to society (by these we mean of course, the workers or the poor in general).


There was no planned economy in the UK, France or Germany, i.e., there was no socialization of the economic system.

You can bet that the economy of those countries was planned during the war. It doesn't matter whether individual capitalists still owned their factories - it was planned, as the state of those countries directed the economy towards the war effort (indeed, if you didn't, you would be accused of being a coward, deserter, traitor, etc). Even during the Tsar's time in Russia, industrialization happened because the state directed economic efforts towards that goal.


That's not how the argument goes, the argument goes; are the means of production socialized or not? State-ownership does not imply socialization, just look at how the NS or PTT Post were run.

Again, what is socialization to you? You make it unclear. Do you mean that worker's decide what is to be done in a factory? In other words, do you mean worker's self-management?

[Led Zeppelin]

You haven't really given any difference between nationalization and socialization.

I did: "Socializing means abolishing the profit motive in the economic system and establishing a planned economic system."


Just because individual capitalists do not own factories does not mean it is socialism.

I never said that was socialism, in fact I said the economic form of socialism requires material conditions which even the most advanced capitalist nation today does not yet have.

There's a difference between a "socialist economy" and socialization, I was talking about the latter.


A planned economic system does not equate to state-ownership, which is the same as nationalization of all industries under state control. This is not the way to socialism, nor should it be. There was something the Bolsheviks did right, and it happened right after the overthrow of the provisional government, and that is worker's committees ownership of factories. They were abolished as a necessary evil to organize the war effort against the whites.

Socialization means socializing power - giving power to society (by these we mean of course, the workers or the poor in general).

Workers' control over the means of production is a key component of socialization, yes. So is nationalization (and by that I mean real nationalization; expropriation) , collectivization and establishing a planned economy.

When the latter three are achieved while the first isn't, you still have a economic system which is superior to capitalism, even if it isn't fully socialized or "socialist".


You can bet that the economy of those countries was planned during the war. It doesn't matter whether individual capitalists still owned their factories - it was planned, as the state of those countries directed the economy towards the war effort (indeed, if you didn't, you would be accused of being a coward, deserter, traitor, etc). Even during the Tsar's time in Russia, industrialization happened because the state directed economic efforts towards that goal.

The war industries were "planned" to a certain extent, but the rest of the economy certainly wasn't. They were heavily invested in, sure, but they weren't expropriated, probably the most essential part of the socialization process.


Again, what is socialization to you? You make it unclear. Do you mean that worker's decide what is to be done in a factory? In other words, do you mean worker's self-management?

Socialization is a process which has different phases; expropriation of the means of production (i.e., real nationalization), collectivization of the land, planned economy, workers' control over the means of production.

The USSR had the first three while lacking the last one.

No capitalist state has ever even had the first component, that is, expropriation of the means of production.

When socialization is complete, you have a economic system which is most effective and efficient at building socialism. Socialism itself is another economic system altogether, because when that stage of development is reached the bourgeois mode of distribution will be abandoned, scarcity will be eliminated, and society can begin to transform towards communism while the state withers away.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ So you are in agreement with me after all in terms of the socialist mode of production having no wage slavery whatsoever (hence, labour-time vouchers or cyber equivalents), right?

Anyhow, I have these criteria, combining your first two:

1) Expropriation throughout the economy and sovkhozization (not mere kolkhozization) of agriculture;
2) Planned economy;
3) Workers' control over the means of production;
4) Abolition of wage slavery and establishment of labour-time economics.

[Led Zeppelin]

^^^ So you are in agreement with me after all in terms of the socialist mode of production having no wage slavery whatsoever (hence, labour-time vouchers or cyber equivalents), right?

Yes, a fully socialist mode of production does not have wage-slavery.


Anyhow, I have these criteria, combining your first two:

1) Expropriation throughout the economy and sovkhozization (not mere kolkhozization) of agriculture;
2) Planned economy;
3) Workers' control over the means of production;
4) Abolition of wage slavery and establishment of labour-time economics.

Those are indeed the phases of development, but of course the transition from the one into the other requires certain material conditions, and doesn't always proceed in a sequential manner because of this.

This is why the USSR succesfully went from the first to the second and third shortly after the revolution, then retracted from the third and first (because of the NEP and increased centralization and other factors caused by the civil war), and then finally settled on the first and second.

And even with those changes it still had a lot of different forms and levels of change, for example the NEP only affected agriculture while industrial production was still nationalized, socialized (to a certain extent, see my previous post about the socialization process and its various phases) and planned. The forms of policy were directly caused by the change in material conditions, and during that period it changed a lot.

It will be the same whenever the stages of development are applied to reality, because reality is never "perfect" or abstract as theory is.

This is why Trotsky correctly said:



It is nonsense to say that stages cannot in general be skipped. The living historical process always makes leaps over isolated ‘stages’ which derive from theoretical breakdown into its component parts of the process of development in its entirety, that is, taken in its fullest scope. The same is demanded of revolutionary policy at critical moments. It may be said that the first distinction between a revolutionist and a vulgar evolutionist lies in the capacity to recognize and exploit such moments.

Marx’s breakdown of the development of industry into handicraft, manufacture and factory is part of the ABC of political economy, or more precisely, of historico-economic theory. In Russia, however, the factory came by skipping over the epoch of manufacture and of urban handicrafts. This is already among the syllables of history. An analogous process took place in our country in class relationships and in politics. The modern history of Russia cannot be comprehended unless the Marxist schema of the three stages is known: handicraft, manufacture, factory. But if one knows only this, one still comprehends nothing. For the fact is that the history of Russia – Stalin should not take this personally – skipped a few stages. The theoretical distinction of the stages, however, is necessary for Russia, too, otherwise one can comprehend neither what this leap amounted to nor what its consequences were.

Read more here: On the Skipping of Historical Stages (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/pr06.htm)

[Die Neue Zeit]

The "conventional Trotskyist definition of socialism" is exactly what I described. Besides, it's not the "conventional Trotskyist definition", it's the "conventional Marxist definition", one which Lenin also shared.

The problem with Lenin is that he wrote about the same subject differently at different times, he needed to do so to counter the prevailing "arguments" in favor of, or opposed to, the subject at hand. This why so many people are able to take Lenin's position out of historical context and ascribe ideas to him which weren't his at all.

You're doing the same thing.

Don't you think it's possible that both he and Trotsky changed his views over time? You'll notice that, as the years passed, Lenin equated socialist relations more and more with non-bourgeois state capitalism "made to benefit the whole people." Never in his later years did he address wage slavery and labour-time vouchers. :(

I noticed this in Shit-Chat:


From the Marxist perspective, socialism - i.e. workers management over the means of production - never existed in the USSR.

'Until workers' control has become a fact, until the advanced workers have organised and carried out a victorious and ruthless crusade against the violators of this control, or against those who are careless in matters of control, it will be impossible to pass from the first step (from workers' control) to the second step towards socialism, ie, to pass on to a workers' regulation of production.'
- Lenin (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/mar/x03.htm)

The above poster - along with most Marxists - doesn't understand that socialism has more "positive" (vs. the "negative" elimination of private capital property and market relations) features than just workers' control.



I appears to me that you're the one who's attempting to put [albeit correct] words into the mouths of Trotsky (again, I'm not a Trot, so I don't care as much) and especially Lenin (since I'm a social-proletocrat, I care more). Consider this in the RevMarx forum (already Lenin made mistakes in "Left-Wing Childishness"):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxism-leninism-anti-t73258/index.html (Post #12 and onwards)

And my unsung Theory thread:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/lenins-error-re-t74487/index.html

[Led Zeppelin]

Don't you think it's possible that both he and Trotsky changed his views over time? You'll notice that, as the years passed, Lenin equated socialist relations more and more with non-bourgeois state capitalism "made to benefit the whole people." Never in his later years did he address wage slavery and labour-time vouchers. :(

Because he wasn't theorizing about an abstract future society, he was writing about the best practical implementation of socialism within the material limits of the USSR at the time.

As for Trotsky changing his views over time, no he didn't, because that work I linked to was from the 30's, and he never recanted that position.

As for Lenin changing his views over time, I responded to that already earlier:


The problem with Lenin is that he wrote about the same subject differently at different times, he needed to do so to counter the prevailing "arguments" in favor of, or opposed to, the subject at hand. This why so many people are able to take Lenin's position out of historical context and ascribe ideas to him which weren't his at all.


I appears to me that you're the one who's attempting to put [albeit correct] words into the mouths of Trotsky (again, I'm not a Trot, so I don't care as much) and especially Lenin (since I'm a social-proletocrat, I care more).

Not really. If you read State And Revolution, where Lenin was theorizing about an abstract future society, he did mention those things.

As for Trotsky, read his works and you'll see that I'm not putting any words in his mouth, I suggest The Revolution Betrayed and Permanent Revolution.