What is 'Socialism'?

[red eck]

I'd like to know people's thoughts on developing the understanding of politics/historical materialism. The problem is this: if Marxists are seeking to create a new class of people, a new class derived from proletariat/lower middle class, that has an understanding of how its society works and begins to set up institutions in some form or another (economic and/or political) that begins to displace the previous capitalist organisations which may eventually lead to a revolution and a change of and/or dwindling of state. Then what is required of its agents? What properties much each socialist posses?

There are things that I am aware of that most people are not, things that I was unaware of too. For example take economics: I used to be doubtful of some of the aims of socialist politics in terms of practicality back when I was 16/17 years old. I remember reading the SSP's manifesto and wondered, 'how can they afford all that?'. Now that I'm more older and have read a bit of Marx and some articles from other left wing writers, I now realise that the standard of living is determined primarily by class rather than physical economic limits. That's a significant achievement, and if everyone took this view, then how radicalised would the working class become?. And no current far-left group has it as one of their main priorities to promote this view.

Now, it is just not feasible for everybody to acquire a degree in economics to prove this. Just like it is unfeasible for everybody to become experts in history or philosophy and so on. But socialists do need to be aware of and to benefit from human knowledge and avoid being miss-led.

I would like to be able to put together an essential curriculum for becoming a socialist, a list of essays for the laymen with the academic rigour behind them if called upon, that challenges current right wing and conservative ideologies. If I had such a list I could promote it in my encounters to those whose interests it would serve; the working class.

Now, if it is the case that what I outlined in the first paragraph turns out to be incorrect, learning things as described in paragraph 2 can't be a bad idea anyway, so it would be worthwhile regardless of whatever the hypothesis may be on the progress of mankind. To promote a good materialist understanding of the world should be one of the fundamental tasks of any socialist group.

That's my current thinking on what I would like Marxism/Socialism to be. These are things that I consider to be achievable.

[casper]

jean jock Rousseau- " the social contract"
main subject is government

Karl Marx- "the communist manifesto"
basics

Friedrich Nietzsche- "the will to power"
very interesting book, may be useful

physics or other science books
education in the scientific method changes perspective in a positive way

psychology and sociology books:
human behavior and theories behind it.

economics: help understand how resources are distributed and how people acquire resources.

history: show the repetitions of the past, examples of ideas, and evidence as well.

any philosophy book, maybe a study in comparative religions to help point out some cultural universals and different ways they are put into action. also, not being ignorant in other religions tend to weaken the attractiveness in all religions.

the Mentor - " the hacker's manifesto"
great work, just... great.

i'm sure there are alot of others
the ultimate goal is a classless society, not a new class. but i can see how education and an intermediary stage can help to bring about a classless society.

[Q]

Socialism (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/o.htm#socialism)

[mikelepore]

After being a Marxist since the 1960s, I've returned full-circle to the position that the simplest understanding of socialism is the most correct. Instead of having stockholders who elect the management, the workers should elect the management. Instead of industry extracting profits, goods should be priced at their cost of production. That's the foundation. Everything on top of that is only my personal choice about how to decorate versus your personal choice about how to decorate.

[BobKKKindle$]

The problem is this: if Marxists are seeking to create a new class of people, a new class derived from proletariat/lower middle classMarxists do not seek to create a new class, we aim to abolish class divisions entirely and by doing so create a classless society. As Marx pointed out, capital is a "social relation", and so the mere existence of any class is necessarily dependent on a ruling or oppressed class existing at the same time.

Mikelepore, with respect, you seem to have a very limited and pessimistic vision of socialism.


Instead of having stockholders who elect the management, the workers should elect the management.The workers should be in charge of managing production - allowing a separate stratum of managers to exist should not be permitted except in special circumstances where a hierarchical division of labour is required due to safety of practical expediency, because even when these managers are payed exactly the same wage as other workers and are subject to instant recall, the perpetuation of division will prevent workplace alienation from being abolished. Communists should advocate mixed job complexes which means that every worker employed in a given enterprise is able to spend some of their time doing jobs which are fulfilling and allow them to exercise their creative faculties, on the condition that they also carry out their share of menial tasks.


Instead of industry extracting profits, goods should be priced at their cost of production.If goods are sold at exactly the cost of production, how will enterprises accumulate funds to cover the cost of depreciation, purchasing more advanced equipment, protecting against natural disasters, increasing productive capacity, and all the other issues they may encounter? This is one of Marx's main points of criticism in 'Critique of the Gotha Program' but you appear to have totally ignored him.

[red eck]

Marxists do not seek to create a new class, we aim to abolish class divisions entirely and by doing so create a classless society.I agree with this principle. But to abide by it leaves us making big assumptions about the working class that have been wrecked in the 20th Century. After much thought, I have come to conclusion that the working class are not inherently revolutionary - by themselves. I am by no means denying the economic power of the working class, it's just that in Capitalist society, the working class are a complementary class to the middle class. The middle class decide on the investments, the working class carry them out.

A radicalised working class, one that is informed and non-stultified, to me represents a new class separate from the original working class. And what distinguishes this new radicalised working class from the original is their autonomy from the labour market. I don't know how to achieve this autonomy, but to me this would be the key materialist indicator of a new class.

To sum up, I believe the working class are not revolutionary, and a [hypothetical] new class with socio-economic relations that give them autonomy from the labour market would be a key indicator of [hopefully] a socialist class.

[BobKKKindle$]

I am by no means denying the economic power of the working class, it's just that in Capitalist society, the working class are a complimentary class to the middle class.In what way is the proletariat "complimentary"? A basic recognition of Marxism is that the proletariat is the only consistently revolutionary class and must always assume the leading role in any movements which seeks to overthrow capitalism and establish socialism. This is the result of several factors all of which are connected with the development of capitalism and the structural position of the proletariat within capitalist society; the proletariat is the only class which grows larger in size as capitalism develops due to industrialization whereas the members of other classes such as the peasantry and the petty-bourgeoisie are squeezed by capital and forced to become part of the proletariat, moreover, the cooperation of the proletariat is necessary for the production of goods and thus the accumulation of capital and so if the proletariat withdraws this cooperation in the form of a strike or a prolonged revolutionary struggle the interests of the bourgeoisie will be threatened. The middle class does not share these features and so does not have the same potential.

[casper]

none of the 5 classes, upper class, upper-middle, (middle, working), working-poor, poor. are revolutionary in themselves, unless there is widespread discomfort, sense of insecurity, and then somebody has to show them how to get rid of those feelings, usually its someone like the priest or a government official... :blushing::(

[red eck]

In what way is the proletariat "complimentary"?By this I mean the middle classes set the agenda and the working class carry it out. The existence of one class presumes the existence of the other. The middle class sets up the investments and employ the working class to carry them out. So far, I have yet to see an sustained example in history where the working class have had a direct input into planned investments that are in its own interests. The Russian example proved that the state cannot be used as a substitute for 'radical working class'. The middle class/working class dichotomy remained.


, moreover, the cooperation of the proletariat is necessary for the production of goods and thus the accumulation of capital and so if the proletariat withdraws this cooperation in the form of a strike or a prolonged revolutionary struggle the interests of the bourgeoisie will be threatenedLike I said, I do not deny the economic power of the proletariat. But I do not recognise their ability to be autonomous. Even in dire economic situations, any industrial disquiet can be alleviated with the promise of 'new jobs' from major investments by the state. The working class actually accept the social arrangements, once their needs are met. But they remain proletariat, or rather, the middle class stay in place as the administrators of investment. Hence the two classes are complementary.

If this arrangement were ever to change, then we are no longer talking about bourgeois and proletariat, but some another set of class relations with a new class or classes.

[BobKKKindle$]

By this I mean the middle classes set the agenda and the working class carry it outYour use of the term "middle class" here is problematic as Marxists recognize that the most important economic and political decisions in any capitalist society are made by the bourgeoisie (i.e. those who own the means of production) and not those who are commonly seen as part of the middle class - for example, professionals, managers, and small businessmen. However, this is not the main issue. Marx always argued that the liberation of the proletariat can only come about as the result of the struggles of the proletariat itself and not the isolated intrigues of a small group of revolutionaries who seek to impose their vision of how liberation should take place on the rest of society without the active participation of the proletariat and other oppressed groups, and so surely any successful and genuine revolution will involve the power to make decisions being taken away from existing elites and placed in the hands of democratic bodies which allow all workers to manage society according to their own interests and make their voices heard. By assuming that the middle class must assume an elite role even after the revolution has occurred, you are making two serious errors - firstly, you have shown that you reject the goal of abolishing class antagonisms and so fundamentally misunderstand the nature of a socialist society, and secondly, in connection with the first error, you underestimate the potential of the proletariat as a revolutionary agent and as a class capable of managing society. Far from affirming your twisted position, historical experience supports these lessons - the proletariat did conquer power through the Russian Revolution, and for a short period of time, before the proletariat was atomized and almost destroyed during the Civil War, decision-making did reflect the interests and demands of the proletariat, expressed through the Soviets. Also of importance is the fact that the middle class did not take the side of the revolution but often supported reactionary forces such as the Cadets and even far-right movements seeking the restoration of the monarchy, such that the Bolsheviks were often forced to imprison the family members of technical experts and other professionals in order to ensure their cooperation. There are numerous other examples of the proletariat successfully taking power, such as the areas under the control of the radical left during the Spanish Revolution, and the embryonic Soviets established during the 1956 Hungarian Uprising.


But they remain proletariat, or rather, the middle class stay in place as the administrators of investment. Hence the two classes are complimentary.As pointed out above, this is an assertion you have not justified - why must a hierarchical division of labour be maintained in a post-revolutionary society? Why would it be impossible to transfer the power of the middle class to the proletariat?


If this arrangement were ever to change, then we are no longer talking about bourgeois and proletariat, but some another set of class relations with a new class or classes.If the proletariat succsfully seized control of the means of production and abolished wage-labour, the proletariat would be abolished as a class, although class antagonisms would remain due to the political resistance of the remnants of the bourgeoisie.

[red eck]

I use the term 'Middle Class' to be synonymous with 'Bourgeois'. I keep it consistent by referring to those who direct investment. So even professionals, managers and small businessmen are included as they can decide to rent buildings, employ people, buy new equipment etc.. I include them all, from the executive who gets bonuses above £100,000 every year to the humble shop keeper who may only get £30,000 or less. They are middle class as they do Capitalism, they do investment, albeit on different scales.

Marx never did explain how communism could come about. And nor should he have. But he had set some criteria that a genuine libertaion would be one with actual democracy. The amount of control the middle class have in aggregate is awesome and has shaped the entire landscape of towns and cities. Now, are the working class always going to have to resort to politcal means to defend their interests, or can they somehow subordinate the market and control it economically? I would like to hear what the Anarcho-syndicalists would have to say on this.

[BobKKKindle$]

Marx certainly gave us a clear indication of how a socialist revolution would take place in terms of its class content and political leadership, when he stated that:

"The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself"

Marx and Engels, Strategy and Tactics of the Class Struggle (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1879/09/17.htm) (1879)

This has been consistently affirmed by the history of the 20th century as all attempts to create socialism without the active participation of the proletariat as the leading revolutionary class have ended in failure and resulted in the creation of authoritarian societies, which replicated capitalistic power structures and injustices, which is why the SWP chose to designate these societies as "state-capitalist". You seem confused on the nature of socialism and also completely failed to respond to the points made in my previous posts, as you suggest that the middle class (i.e. the bourgeoisie, according to you) should always retain political power because the proletariat is apparently incapable of making decisions and carrying out production without a managerial hierarchy. The goal of the socialist revolution is to abolish all elements of the capitalist system including the market and construct a just society based on a planned economy and the distribution of goods according to need, whereas you seem to be proposing, if anything, limited reforms within the framework of capitalism which do nothing to challenge the power of the bourgeoisie and leave authoritarian structures intact.

[red eck]

Bobkindles,


You seem confused on the nature of socialism and also completely failed to respond to the points made in my previous posts, as you suggest that the middle class (i.e. the bourgeoisie, according to you) should always retain political power because the proletariat is apparently incapable of making decisions and carrying out production without a managerial hierarchy.

That's not what I said at all.

Also if it helps to clarify things, I corrected the spelling of the word 'complementary'. I mean to use 'complementary' as in 'combining in such a way as to form a complete whole or to enhance or emphasize each others qualities'. - Oxford dictionary