Stuck in socialism?

[spartan]

Socialism is the transitionary stage after capitalism and before communismn (which it leads to).

What if however, we become stuck in the socialist stage?

I was thinking this after looking up past examples of socialist states like the USSR (with their bureaucracies, command economies, vanguard parties, etc) and it led me to believe that the people at the top of these states and there systems (bureaucracy, politbureau and the leadership of the one party allowed in the state) would be so entrenched in their privileged position (and lets face it they didn't have to form long queues when food got short or live in small apartments like everyone else) that they wouldn't want socialism to develop into communism as it would be detrimental to the privileged position that they have as managers of a socialist command economy.

Would we therefore have to have another revolution against a bureaucratic class to force the transition from socialism to communism just as we did before with capitalism?

How can we trust these bureaucrats to just give up all the privileges that they give themselves for the intrests of the majority? They didn't in the USSR as they eventually restored capitalism and took private ownership of the industries that they previously managed in the socialist system, so what's to say they wont do this in another socialist system again?

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

This ain't something new. Anarchists have always said that if you build a socialist state you will never reach communism. Bakunin once remarked about the "red bureaucracy" which would arrest the growth of real socialism. Quite simply, we can never trust the bureacrats.

[Winter]

I believe it would be time for a Cultural revolution. Let the people themselves pluck the corrupt beauracrats out. Only when the vanguard party is free from power mongerers can progress take place.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nm5fCJNMQWQ

[Die Neue Zeit]

This ain't something new. Anarchists have always said that if you build a socialist state you will never reach communism. Bakunin once remarked about the "red bureaucracy" which would arrest the growth of real socialism. Quite simply, we can never trust the bureacrats.

If you read the Appendix to my work, you'll note that I've suggested both a critique of anarchism and a possible solution to the problem that you raise. :)

[trivas7]

This ain't something new. Anarchists have always said that if you build a socialist state you will never reach communism.
As opposed to building a socialist -- what exactly?

[Winter]

What prevents capitalism from sinking into Mad Max barbarism?


As opposed to building a socialist -- what exactly?

How will anarchists reach communism?

I think most of it has to do with various syndicates. Instead of a vanguard party It's more about dentralized groups communicating with one another than it is about a centralized group. I think this is flawed however, I'm sure an Anarchist would defend this position a lot better, even though I personally cannot be convinced this would work.

[Niccolò Rossi]

I was thinking this after looking up past examples of [capitalist] states like the USSR

*Fixed*


they ["Socialist" Bureaucrats] wouldn't want [capitalism] to develop into communism as it would be detrimental to the privileged position that they have as managers of a [capitalist] command economy.

*Fixed* The Bourgeoisie have no interest in the emancipation of the working class.


Would we therefore have to have another revolution against a bureaucratic class to force the transition from socialism to communism just as we did before with capitalism?

As with above, your mistake comes in associating socialism with the "Socialist states" of the 20th Century. A proletarian revolution was/is needed in these nations (as with the whole world) against the bourgeoisie.


They didn't in the USSR as they eventually restored capitalism and took private ownership of the industries that they previously managed in the socialist system

Capitalism was not "restored" after the dissolution of the USSR. What about the USSR made it a "socialist system"?

[spartan]

Capitalism was not "restored" after the dissolution of the USSR. What about the USSR made it a "socialist system"?

Well that's the problem you see as some people think that the USSR and other past socialist states (yeah i know i used the wrong term) were actually state capitalist (anarchists and libertarian socialists/communists amongst many others), degenerated worker's state (trotskyists amongst others) or genuine socialism (hoxhaists and maoists though not post-Stalin).

I was actually worrying about what the correct terminology was to use in describing the USSR and other past socialist (there i go again) states.

To answer your question i dont personally think that the USSR or anything in it was an example of socialism and a socialist system or at the least not the kind of socialism the majority of us would like to see.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

As opposed to building a socialist -- what exactly?

Libertarian Socialism, you know, the rather long lived political tendency. There is the old anarchist saying "Liberty without socialism is injustice, Socialism without freedom is slavery." All proper anarchists are socialists.

[dirtycommiebastard]

Even if the USSR didn't undergo a bureaucratic degeneration, it was far from the material conditions necessary for it to reach the higher level of communism. Surplus value was still being used to further the development of the means of production. You cannot expect a surplus mode of production to be created in such a short amount of time.

It would still have required generations of development and also trade with other socialist countries around the world.

When the German revolution failed,the USSR became an isolated socialist state, and this further distanced it from the goal of the higher stage of communism.

[ComradeOm]

Libertarian Socialism, you know, the rather long lived political tendency. There is the old anarchist saying "Liberty without socialism is injustice, Socialism without freedom is slavery." All proper anarchists are socialists.That's nice but it doesn't answer trivas7's rather acute question ;)

One rather dishonest way that I've observed a number of anarchists dealing with the whole 'post-revolution state' question - and I'm not suggesting that this is a position that you hold yourself - is by simple relabelling. Since all but the most idealistic anarchists admit that some transitional period is necessary (ie society will not simply snap into anarchism/communism the day or week after revolution) people tend to talk the emergence of workers councils, autonomism, etc etc. What all this vague talk disguises is that the temporary social structures that pave the way for complete liberty and equality (whether they last for months or years) still fall within the Marxist definition of the state!

But I digress. I know its easier to go on about bureaucrats but I am interested to hear your response to trivas7's question

[Die Neue Zeit]

*Fixed*

*Fixed* The Bourgeoisie have no interest in the emancipation of the working class.

Comrade Zeitgeist, as I said in Comrade Rakunin's RevMarx thread on the class nature of the Soviet Union, the functioning capitalists weren't "bourgeois" simply because of the absence of private ownership of capital property and the minimization of "market forces" on the consumer goods and services market.


Surplus value was still being used to further the development of the means of production. You cannot expect a surplus mode of production to be created in such a short amount of time.

Simultaneously surplus and socially necessary production "for the common funds" (including the expansion of productive forces) does not necessarily entail the artificial "necessity" of having capital.

[Trystan]

Socialism is the transitionary stage after capitalism and before communismn (which it leads to).


I guess it depends on how much Marxism you believe in. So Engels says that the state will "wither away" and perhaps he will be proven right . . . only time can tell.

Following Marx's principle might help it a bit though: the emancipation of the working class must be an act of the working class. :)

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

That's nice but it doesn't answer trivas7's rather acute question ;)

One rather dishonest way that I've observed a number of anarchists dealing with the whole 'post-revolution state' question - and I'm not suggesting that this is a position that you hold yourself - is by simple relabelling. Since all but the most idealistic anarchists admit that some transitional period is necessary (ie society will not simply snap into anarchism/communism the day or week after revolution) people tend to talk the emergence of workers councils, autonomism, etc etc. What all this vague talk disguises is that the temporary social structures that pave the way for complete liberty and equality (whether they last for months or years) still fall within the Marxist definition of the state!

But I digress. I know its easier to go on about bureaucrats but I am interested to hear your response to trivas7's question

Perhaps the Marxist definition of the State is not the only one. Perhaps the definition is wrong, becuase it does not take into account the structure and application of that force. Anarchists believe in a decentralized confederation of worker's and community councils that will coordinate and arm worker's militias to beat back reactionary forces. This structure takes coercive force out of the control of a small group and puts it under the control of every worker on a more or less equal basis.

The great failure of Marxist Leninism is the inability to decentralize this force. Instead Leninist parties have consistently concentrated power in a small ruling oligarchy. Starting from Lenin and onward through history, the impulse and action has always been to eliminate the self activity of the working class, substituting it for bureaucrats and military officers.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Um, Weber's definition (also the anarchist definition) is woefully incorrect. A mere act of self-defense breaks the "monopoly on the use of violence."

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

^^^ Um, Weber's definition (also the anarchist definition) is woefully incorrect. A mere act of self-defense breaks the "monopoly on the use of violence."

1. Anarchists are not Weberians.

2. It is a monopoly on the legitimate use of organized coercive force. Self defense isn't really coercion, its stopping coercion, and its not too organized. When it is organized it is defamed as "vigilante justice."

[Die Neue Zeit]

Weber didn't say the words "organized" and "coercive":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_the_legitimate_use_of_physical_force

[trivas7]

2. It is a monopoly on the legitimate use of organized coercive force.
But I thought anarchists by definition believe that the state is illegitimate. So how can this be?

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

But I thought anarchists by definition believe that the state is illegitimate. So how can this be?

Legitimate according to societal norms. Gangsters can use organized force but that is "wrong." But the state can kill millions and that is considered "legitimate."

[trivas7]

Legitimate according to societal norms. Gangsters can use organized force but that is "wrong." But the state can kill millions and that is considered "legitimate."
I'm confused. How do you define the state?

[ComradeOm]

Perhaps the Marxist definition of the State is not the only one. Perhaps the definition is wrong, becuase it does not take into account the structure and application of that forceIt doesn't? That's news to both me and, I'd expect, the countless number of Marxist theorists and academics that have elaborated on the nature, formation, structure, and tools of the state in the past century and a half

Its even pretty explicit in the original 'base and superstructure' analysis whereby the form/structure of the state is dependent on the economic and social conditions from which it arises. Even this overly simplistic summary is far more nuanced than the single line Weberian definition commonly proffered by anarchists

Out of curiosity, are you what is called a 'class struggle anarchist'?


Anarchists believe in a decentralized confederation of worker's and community councils that will coordinate and arm worker's militias to beat back reactionary forcesSo we do get an answer. Thank you. You do realise of course that I could have posed the same question to virtually every colour of communist (excepting of course the Marxist-Leninists) and received the same answer? Its also interesting to note that none would attempt to dodge the term 'state' or fudge the theory in order to do so


The great failure of Marxist Leninism is the inability to decentralize this force. Instead Leninist parties have consistently concentrated power in a small ruling oligarchy. Starting from Lenin and onward through history, the impulse and action has always been to eliminate the self activity of the working class, substituting it for bureaucrats and military officers.This is the other thing I dislike about anarchists. Any meaningful discussion of theory inevitably collapses into a rant against bureaucrats and Leninists. If I was the cynical sort I might assume that this was an attempt to justify your own position, and lack of theoretical consistency, by pointing out flaws in a strawman argument

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

It doesn't? That's news to both me and, I'd expect, the countless number of Marxist theorists and academics that have elaborated on the nature, formation, structure, and tools of the state in the past century and a half

Its even pretty explicit in the original 'base and superstructure' analysis whereby the form/structure of the state is dependent on the economic and social conditions from which it arises. Even this overly simplistic summary is far more nuanced than the single line Weberian definition commonly proffered by anarchists

And yet you have failed to investigate the most important aspect of how that power and force is used. As such, nearly every Marxist revolution, outside of the councilist ones, has degenerated into bureaucracy and authoritarianism. Why? Well, when you posit coercive force in a small group of individuals without a real democratic check, they tend to exploit those under them.

Also, Anarchists are not Weberian. Anarchists share some tenets of the Weberian definition, but we differ. We see the state as an alien institution, something that exists apart from the people, controlled by groups outside of the democratic control of the working class.


Out of curiosity, are you what is called a 'class struggle anarchist'?

This is a silly question. Every anarchist on this board is a class struggle anarchist.


So we do get an answer. Thank you. You do realise of course that I could have posed the same question to virtually every colour of communist (excepting of course the Marxist-Leninists) and received the same answer? Its also interesting to note that none would attempt to dodge the term 'state' or fudge the theory in order to do so

Your point? Marxism outside of Leninist parties is rather small. Your survey sample would be correspondingly tiny. I think there are definite differences in how non leninist marxists conceive of the state, and how anarchists conceive of the state. Namely that we view it as an armed body outside of collective control. We also emphasis the voluntary nature of organs of working class power. Groups are free to go their own way, as are individuals. Though in terms of practice I don't think it matters too much.



This is the other thing I dislike about anarchists. Any meaningful discussion of theory inevitably collapses into a rant against bureaucrats and Leninists. If I was the cynical sort I might assume that this was an attempt to justify your own position, and lack of theoretical consistency, by pointing out flaws in a strawman argument

This is a discussion about being stuck in leninist socialism. Of course I am going to point out the failures of leninism as such. That's the main reason for the thread. If you wanted to avoid that, you could have mentioned that you weren't a leninist in the first place. This wasn't a discussion on the nature of the state, it was a discussion on the nature of Leninism in practice.

[BobKKKindle$]

I was thinking this after looking up past examples of socialist states like the USSR..[etc]

The process of bureacratic degeneration in the USSR occurred not because of an inherent ideological tendency towards authoritarian methods of political control and suppression of dissent, but due to the elimination of the main social base of the revolution and the failure of the revolution to spread abroad. Lenin and Trotsky always recognized that the USSR would only be able to achieve socialism if the revolution spread beyond the borders of one country to the advanced states, which would be able to provide with the USSR with resources and so enable the USSR to overcome the limitations imposed by the low level of industrial development and the weakness of the working class. The absence of revolution on an international scale allowed the bureaucracy to gain control of the party apparatus and establish political hegemony.


The bureaucracy has not only broken with the past, but has deprived itself of the ability to understand the most important lessons of that past. The chief of these lessons was that the Soviet power could not have held out for 12 months without the direct help of the international – and especially the European – proletariat, and without a revolutionary movement of the colonial peoples.

The Revolution Betrayed, Foreign Policy and the Army, From "World Revolution" to Status Quo, (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch08.htm) Leon Trotsky

[Decolonize The Left]

Socialism is the transitionary stage after capitalism and before communismn (which it leads to).

What if however, we become stuck in the socialist stage?

I was thinking this after looking up past examples of socialist states like the USSR (with their bureaucracies, command economies, vanguard parties, etc) and it led me to believe that the people at the top of these states and there systems (bureaucracy, politbureau and the leadership of the one party allowed in the state) would be so entrenched in their privileged position (and lets face it they didn't have to form long queues when food got short or live in small apartments like everyone else) that they wouldn't want socialism to develop into communism as it would be detrimental to the privileged position that they have as managers of a socialist command economy.

Yes, you have stumbled upon the logic that power corrupts.


Would we therefore have to have another revolution against a bureaucratic class to force the transition from socialism to communism just as we did before with capitalism?

This is possible. A much simpler solution is to avoid instituting hierarchies in the first place. If the initial revolution brings about a more democratic (and hence by definition decentralized) society, then there would be no need for a second fix-it revolution.


How can we trust these bureaucrats to just give up all the privileges that they give themselves for the intrests of the majority? They didn't in the USSR as they eventually restored capitalism and took private ownership of the industries that they previously managed in the socialist system, so what's to say they wont do this in another socialist system again?

Nothing. We can't trust bureaucrats to 'give up' privileges. That's why your best solution is to avoid privileges and hierarchy in the first place - freedom and equality. If democracy is truly a 'government for, of, and by, the people' then how can you justify having some people make decisions for others?

- August

[Black Sheep]

i have a question about socialism, so i ll post it here.
Is there maybe another definition of socialism?Apart from the transitional phase i mean.

If that is not the case, how come there are "socialist parties"? Wtf is socialism without communism?

day-dreaming infant social democracy?:D