Socialism vs. Communism [Archive]

View Full Version : Socialism vs. Communism

Revy

3rd January 2009, 20:08

Die Neue Zeit

3rd January 2009, 20:26

That, comrade, is taken straight out of Section 3 in the Communist Manifesto. Listed there are "feudal socialists," "petit-bourgeois socialists," "bourgeois socialists," "true socialists," etc.

As per my own work, I too have reservations about the usage of the word "socialism" (notwithstanding Comrade Rakunin's revolutionary equivalence of it to social labour / social ergatocracy / social proletocracy / social-abolitionism / etc. through advocacy of labour credits and labour time allocation replacing money and specifically capital altogether (http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/)).

On the one hand, I guess it's OK to use that word when countering ignorant rants about "socialism" (usually of either the "social-democratic" type or the mere tax-and-spend-liberal type).

On the other hand, the monetary connotations are too universally accepted (i.e., even "revolutionary socialism" is considered to be monetary, a legacy of the Second International which Lenin couldn't quite break away from, much less Trotsky, Luxemburg, and many left-communists of the day (http://www.revleft.com/vb/social-proletocracy-marx-t80882/index.html)).

If I had to use ortho-Marxist "stage-ism" in terms of the road to "communism": revolution -> DOTP -> "socialism" -> social ergatocracy / social proletocracy / "lower-phase of social-abolitionism / communism" -> "higher phase of social-abolitionism" / "communism"

Lynx

3rd January 2009, 20:41

What is the difference between "the road to socialism, then communism"
and the "road to communism" ?

Die Neue Zeit

3rd January 2009, 20:47

Well, the ultra-left World Socialist Movement advocates a direct "road to communism" without labour credits or whatever. Other than that, I didn't have any specific implication by using those words. It's just that that ortho-Marxists departed a bit from Marx and Engels in terms of "stage-ifying" the post-capitalist periods, while the pair thought of them as being part of the same mode of production.

I had to convey my point above using the post-capitalist "stage-ism" of ortho-Marxism. Comrade Cockshott adheres to this "stage-ism" (TNS Czech preface advocating state-capitalist monopoly and monetary central planning after the multi-economy), while I don't (http://www.revleft.com/vb/economics-and-politics-t83454/index.html) (if you recall ;) ), thinking it possible to have some "economies" already operate on the sole basis of labour credits and labour time allocations (derived, ironically, from the TNS chapter on foreign trade).

LOLseph Stalin

3rd January 2009, 21:09

Many things have been said about the difference between communism and socialism. For example, to many, socialism is a temporary period, until a stateless communist society can be achieved. To social democrats, socialism represents effectively what they advocate, capitalism with a happy face, while big scary Communism represents totalitarian dictatorship.

That made me laugh so hard. Also, my view on Socialism is that it's a transition stage between Capitalism and Communism. As we all know, Communism can't be achived immedietely after the revolution.

Tower of Bebel

3rd January 2009, 22:50

The Communist League see[s] socialism and communism as opposing ideologies.
That's because socialism is so much abused by so many. The difference between socialism and communism is not one between a class (and state) society vs. a classless (and stateless) society, but one between each according to his ability (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s3) and each according to his needs (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s4). State "socialism" (a so called equivalent of the dictatorship of the proletariat) can only be socialist in its intensions (hence the name USSR).

Real socialism is classless and therefor stateless (though the corps of the former proletarian state - the former class dictatorship - may still live on (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s4)in the form of aid for those who cannot work according to their abilities and in the form of bourgeois jurisdiction). Money and capital are abolished or replaced; that's why there are no capitalist class to oppress and no toilling classes opposed to them.

Martin Blank

4th January 2009, 00:24

The Communist League (http://www.communistleague.us/) (US) has a statement (http://www.communistleague.us/tcm/pdf/socialism-or-communism.pdf) on their site published in The Communist Monthly, which tries to show the difference they see between communism and socialism. It argued for communism and against what they saw as socialism. They argued that socialism represented a kind of state socialism, and frequently refer to the phrase "bourgeois socialism".

Many things have been said about the difference between communism and socialism. For example, to many, socialism is a temporary period, until a stateless communist society can be achieved. To social democrats, socialism represents effectively what they advocate, capitalism with a happy face, while big scary Communism represents totalitarian dictatorship.

The Communist League takes a very sectarian approach, seeing socialism and communism as opposing ideologies. It is no surprise they condemn every other group besides them as "bourgeois".

For me, it seems that this debate is kind of silly. Why can't socialism be our end goal and represent the same kind of society as communism? It feels kind of empty to identify as a socialist and think that you're only fighting for a transitory period.

But those are just my thoughts, I'm welcoming yours.

There are three points to deal with here:

1. I think it's important that people who are going to chime in here actually read the statement first. Obviously, Stancel has, and I appreciate his comments, even if I completely disagree with his assessment. I will post the text of the statement in this thread shortly.

2. Stancel effectively avoids the main crux of the argument made in the statement: Socialism has become such a catch-all, and has been so abused over the years, that the term has lost any worthwhile meaning. Moreover, socialism, as has existed (and, in many respects, as it is fought for) is one that maintains a state as the arbiter of equality. This is in opposition to communism, which seeks to eliminate the basis for the state in order to eliminate the state itself. Further, a state is a class-based formation. Where there are classes, there is a state (and vice versa). Where there are no classes, there is no state (and vice versa). This is where socialists and communists diverge: Communists want a classless and stateless society. What do socialists want?

3. The sectarian charge is a joke. What is sectarianism? It is placing organizational principles ahead of the workers' movement. At no time has our view on socialism been an obstacle to our working with self-described socialists, and especially not to our working within our class. In our view, many people who call themselves socialists are, in fact, communists in their stated views. In my view, Debs and DeLeon were communists, even though they called themselves socialists. It seems to me that the sectarians in this scenario are those self-described socialists that would refuse to work with us because they make a shibboleth out of our differences. This "non-sectarian" sectarianism is fashionable today, and has done more harm than good -- certainly more harm than we can be accused of having done.

Silver

4th January 2009, 00:30

It's clear that to the best Marxists (Marx, Engels, Luxemburg...), Socialism = Communism.

What is called "state socialism" is, in fact, state capitalism (Wilhelm Liebknecht said so a long time ago).

Socialism can only exists if "the abolition of all class rule" is accomplished.

"The emancipation of labor is neither a local nor a national, but a social problem, embracing all countries in which modern society exists", as Marx wrote in 1864, that's why Socialism can only be worldwide.

Communism and Socialism are synonyms.

Silver

4th January 2009, 00:33

Socialism has become such a catch-all, and has been so abused over the years, that the term has lost any worthwhile meaning.
Unfortunately, one could write exactly the same thing about the word Communism...

Martin Blank

4th January 2009, 00:34

Socialism or Communism?

From The Communist Monthly, January 2008

It is a common question that is asked of us: “What is the difference between socialism and communism?” A person can ask this question of a hundred people of varying political opinions and get a hundred (at least!) answers. Even people who consider themselves socialists or communists — even the self-appointed “experts!” — cannot agree on an answer to the question, because they cannot agree on the meaning of each term.

What we offer here is our answer to the question — our opinion on the difference between socialism, as we see it, and communism, as we see it. For us, there is a distinct and fundamental difference between these two conceptions, and we do not see any principled way to reconcile the two. There is a reason we choose to call ourselves communists, and it stems from our understanding of the difference between these two competing concepts.

To begin to answer this question, we must first answer two other questions: what is communism, and what is socialism?

WHAT IS COMMUNISM? This question we as the Communist League have answered in many of our basic documents and statements, including our Basic Principles and our statement that bears this question as the title.

Communism is a society without bosses or servants, without superiors or subordinates, without masters or slaves — in short, communism is a society without classes and the stress, conflict and antagonisms that go with the existence of classes. Communism is a society where all aspects of society are developed and administered in common, where there is no state (that is, no armed groups meant to enforce a certain class-based “order”), where there is no money, where people live and work together in harmony with each other and the earth, where barriers to development and achieving one’s full potential are removed, where democracy is a practice and not an empty slogan. Most of all, it is a world system, where human beings look upon and treat each other as brothers and sisters.

The achievement of a communist society is the result of a process of transformation, of revolutions and radical ruptures with existing thought and practice. In our view, this process begins in the existing class struggle between those who own the means of production and those who have only their ability to work to sustain them — in short, the struggle between the capitalists and the working class, the bourgeoisie and proletariat. The building of a communist future begins in the present, with the development of working class as a class that is not only capable but also prepared to overthrow existing society.

This is not only a political task, but also an economic, cultural and social task. Politically, this means a working class prepared to administer and rule in its own collective class interests. Economically, this means a working class ready to not merely oversee but control and plan out all aspects of the production of commodities. Culturally, this means a working class that can elaborate its own intellectual view of the world in all forms, including literature, art, music and philosophy. Socially, this means a working class that has broken with the existing ideologies and doctrines that teach them to be subordinate, passive and accepting of their own exploitation and oppression.

Of course, not all of our brothers and sisters will reach this level of development at the same time, but many will be (or, will be on the road to this level, and ready to move ahead in spite of themselves). When the majority of working people have achieved this development, the conditions exist for beginning the direct struggle for revolutionary change.

Communists see the class struggle as, first and foremost, a political struggle. This is because it is in the arena of political life that all aspects of society align themselves into a consistent “order” defined by the class that is in power. It is the state, the instrument created by a ruling class to impose and enforce its view of “order” on all other classes, that represents the nexus of the class struggle. The overthrow of capitalist class rule hinges on the deposing and breaking up of that state, and the establishment of new bodies that can defend against the old organs of the state and its paramilitary and extralegal forces.

This new political formation, which we call a working people’s republic and was historically called a “dictatorship of the proletariat,” is the political form of the transition from class to classless society. Its task is simple: to assist in the development of conditions in society to such a point that the material basis for classes no longer exist — which, in turn, means that the basis for the new state also no longer exists, and it can be discarded. That is, it is a state only in the sense that it requires armed force to defend itself against a return to capitalist class rule, and only so long as that threat actually exists (that is, only as long as the material basis for classes exist, which is a global question because capitalism and capitalist class rule are a global system).

We organize ourselves as a communist political party — not a party in the capitalist sense of the term, with all-powerful “bosses” and untouchable elected officials, but in the communist sense: as an organized and consistent expression of communism within our class, both theoretically and in our practice. Our principles, platform and practice are all oriented toward the goals of empowering workers to overthrow capitalist rule through a self-liberating revolution and the establishment of a working people’s republic as the transition from capitalism to communism.

WHAT IS SOCIALISM? This is a much more complex question — one that has been explored and analyzed historically by a number of communist thinkers, including Marx and Engels. Taken together, these analyses provide us with the some of basic contours of the concept, but it is the practical experience of the 20th century that has given us the best understanding of this ideology and system.

Essentially, socialism is a “society of equals.” That is, it is a society where, in theory, there are no second-class citizens, no one is above or outside of the law, and where equality is a universal ideal. This is accomplished, generally speaking, through state (“public“ or “social”) ownership (and/or heavy regulation) of the “commanding heights of the economy” — i.e., the largest industries in the country — and a social welfare “safety net.” Governing under socialism is carried out by elected representatives of “the people” in “democratic” bodies that are meant to increase grassroots participation.

Almost immediately, one can spot the differences between socialism and communism. Whereas communism is a society without classes, without a state and where concepts like “democracy” and “equality” have developed newer, higher meanings (while at the same time becoming more real and concrete for people on a daily basis), socialism acts as an ever-present arbiter of “equality” and “democracy,” defining its characteristics based on their current use and with the state in the role of social referee. To put it another way, where communism seeks an end to the coercive state through the abolition of classes and class antagonisms, by way of the elimination of the material basis for classes themselves, socialism seeks to modify and “perfect” the state to mediate among classes for the most “democratic“ and “equal” arrangement ... in the view of those in control of the state.

When Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto in the mid-19th century, they already had to contend with a number of socialist doctrines in existence. Even though, much like today, there were a great number of self-described socialist organizations operating in Europe during this time (and many more to come as a result of the wave of democratic revolutions that took place between 1848 and 1850), these two communist thinkers were able to find definite similarities and parallels among these groups. Generally speaking, the broader categories these groups fell into were defined by the class basis and viewpoint they had. It was not a matter of “left,” “right” or “center” socialism; it was bourgeois, petty-bourgeois or proletarian socialism.

In the 20th century, both bourgeois and petty-bourgeois socialism dominated within the broader working-class movement. At the beginning of the century, the bourgeois socialism of the large socialist and social-democratic organizations, as well as existing labor unions, dominated the radical-left wing of the workers’ movement. Following the October 1917 Revolution in Russia, an alliance of petty-bourgeois and proletarian socialists (and some communists) were able to gain a dominant position, but this alliance soon collapsed and petty-bourgeois socialism dominated the movement — growing in strength alongside the growth of petty-bourgeois rule in the Russian Soviet republic.

The rise of the Soviet Union as the chief expression of “socialism” in the 20th century was a result of the dominance of petty-bourgeois socialism within the broader world movement, and vice versa. As the fiction writer George Orwell implied in his allegory about the Russian Revolution, Animal Farm, what came out of the struggle was indeed a “society of equals” ... but some were “more equal than others.” The ruling petty-bourgeois bureaucracy was rid of the capitalist class (due to the revolutionary action of the working class), but classes were not abolished. In fact, class divisions were codified under the new “socialism” administered by the Soviet government.

Bureaucratic socialism such as we saw in the USSR became more than one view of socialism, it became a distinct, if nevertheless anomalous, mode of production that attempted to exist in the transition between capitalism and communism. The petty bourgeoisie in power sought to define themselves as a necessary midpoint between capitalism and communism, and not only attempted to rewrite political theory to suit their aims (“socialism in a single country”), but also tried to define basic economic principles for their system (“from each according to their ability, to each according to their work”).

Today, socialism of virtually any type is bound up with the “really-existing socialism” of the 20th century — not necessarily because of a false association, but because the theoretical and practical underpinnings of socialism have been shaped by the USSR experience, its doctrines and its lessons, and most socialists have accepted those underpinnings, whether they know it or not and whether they admit it or not. (This is true even among the various “democratic socialist” and some proletarian socialist organizations, which publicly distance themselves from the socialism of the USSR. For them, the role of the state as an arbiter of equality and “owner” of the leading means of production, remains a central element in their programs, as does an indefinite continued existence for the state itself and, perhaps most importantly, a deliberate vagueness about the role of the petty bourgeoisie in a period that is supposed to see the end of classes.)

AS COMMUNISTS, we are aware that there were elements in the 20th century that sought to redefine what our viewpoint and goals were as well. The “official Communism” of the time did try to turn Marx from a communist into a petty-bourgeois (and later bourgeois) socialist. However, when it came to putting those bastardized theories into practice, it was always and at all times done in the name of “socialism.”

Given the fundamental differences between socialism and communism, we cannot in any way maintain our principles while at the same time advocating for the development of a society based on the concept of socialism. On the contrary, it is clear that we as communists would be just as much a consistent opponent of socialism, as defined and understood above, as we are of capitalism. We would not “compromise” with the rulers of a socialist state just because they have perfected the art and science of the social bribe (through the implementation of universal health care, education, social welfare, etc.), but would continue to fight for the organization of the working class to overthrow the socialist exploiters and oppressors and establish a working people’s republic.

At every step, we communists would fight the appointed managers and bosses of the state-owned economy, helping to organize workplace committees that can implement workers’ control of production at all levels. We would work together with our brothers and sisters to create councils and assemblies of working people that can move beyond the formal “democracy” and “equality” of such a system, and begin to transform them in the context of workers’ power and rule. The attempt to mediate social relationships and class divisions while maintaining the basis and existence of classes would be fought through the self-liberation of the exploited and oppressed. In short, whatever revolutionary ferment that may have catapulted socialism into dominance would be renewed, revitalized and made permanent in the struggle for a working people’s republic and communism.

Certainly, such a hard and principled view on this question will result in a great number of high-strung denunciations from the various bourgeois and petty-bourgeois socialist currents out there, all of which will revolve around the same lie: that by taking such a principled position for communism and against socialism, we play into the hands of the capitalists. To this we reply: On the contrary, it is you, the socialists, that do this dirty work. You maintain classes in your desired system; you maintain the state and its role as arbiter of classes and class antagonisms; you rob working people of power over the state and the economy; you force the working class into a semi-passive role, where “liberation” is a government slogan, not a path to general freedom. You seek to stem the tide of revolutionary change and channel it into the path that brings you to power; we seek to unleash the tidal wave so that the working class sweeps you away and takes power itself.

Through such compromises and treachery, you socialists allow the capitalists the means by which to return to power; you give them the key to the back door. By rejecting your half-measures and compromises with the class enemy, we slam the door shut and brick up the portals that aid their return. And, yes, you too will find yourselves shut out.

There is no express lane to achieving our common goals and addressing our class interests. In order to achieve our liberation as a class, we must swim against the stream; if we try to stop halfway, we will be swept back — perhaps farther back than when we started. But if we stand firm — if we stick to our principles and refuse to compromise with those who, consciously or accidentally, aid the class enemy — we can win what we must.

Die Neue Zeit

4th January 2009, 03:06

Excellent article, comrade!

At no time has our view on socialism been an obstacle to our working with self-described socialists, and especially not to our working within our class. In our view, many people who call themselves socialists are, in fact, communists in their stated views. In my view, Debs and DeLeon were communists, even though they called themselves socialists. It seems to me that the sectarians in this scenario are those self-described socialists that would refuse to work with us because they make a shibboleth out of our differences. This "non-sectarian" sectarianism is fashionable today, and has done more harm than good -- certainly more harm than we can be accused of having done.

To be fair, however, I would differentiate between social-statism (even of the revolutionary type advocated by the "left" of the Second International) and social-abolitionism. Comrade Rakunin thinks there should be as much a "battle of socialism" as there should be a "battle of democracy." I have stated my mixed opinion above, because we can't abandon the term "socialism" to "tax and spend" liberal or "social-democratic" types. statists to assume once more.]

On the other hand, we already have "revolutionary socialism" (a six-syllable adjective), "proletarian socialism" (a four- or five-syllable adjective, depending on the "i") and "class-strugglist socialism" (a three- or four-syllable adjective, depending on the "l").

minimum programme aimed at the individual bourgeois-capitalist nation-states.]

Martin Blank

4th January 2009, 06:21

To be fair, however, I would differentiate between social-statism (even of the revolutionary type advocated by the "left" of the Second International) and social-abolitionism.

We can. That's why I said what I said about people who call themselves socialists. Fact is, Jacob, I would call your views generally communist, and removed from what dominates as "socialism" today. I would also point out that it's not simply the "left" of the Second International that subscribes to social-statism, but a bulk of the self-described "Marxist-Leninist" "left" as well. As we pointed out in the statement:

The petty bourgeoisie in power sought to define themselves as a necessary midpoint between capitalism and communism, and not only attempted to rewrite political theory to suit their aims (“socialism in a single country”), but also tried to define basic economic principles for their system (“from each according to their ability, to each according to their work”). (Emphasis mine)

This part is important. This idea of socialism as "from each according to their ability, to each according to their work" establishes a new mode of production distinct from capitalism and communism (which was how Stalin legitimized "socialism in a single country" and later his 1936 "Socialist" Constitution). What point is there to establishing a theoretical new mode of production that is distinct from both capitalism (private ownership and control) and communism (societal ownership and control) if not to justify a new class arrangement?

This is the pivot on which our political opposition to socialism turns. This is why we reject calling ourselves socialist or advocating for "socialism". We are communists; communism is our goal and what we fight for, nothing less.

Comrade Rakunin thinks there should be as much a "battle of socialism" as there should be a "battle of democracy." I have stated my mixed opinion above, because we can't abandon the term "socialism" to "tax and spend" liberal or "social-democratic" types. statists to assume once more.]

The problem is that you're fighting the wrong fight. As you know well, the "'tax and spend' liberal or 'social-democratic' types" have always held that term. They have allowed Marxists and communists to use the term, but never without their omnipresence. Even in the Second International, the socialists actively fought against the communists on a political level, and, ultimately, either the communists lost the will to fight and switched sides or were thrown out. In other words, the "'tax and spend' liberal or 'social-democratic' types" (the social-statists) only allowed them to use the term as long as it was on their terms. When that control began to slip, the Marxist "socialists" (the social-abolitionists, the communists) were purged (or, in a case like Debs, tokenized for fear of losing such a relatively high-profile "socialist" to the communists, where he belonged).

On the other hand, we already have "revolutionary socialism" (a six-syllable adjective), "proletarian socialism" (a four- or five-syllable adjective, depending on the "i") and "class-strugglist socialism" (a three- or four-syllable adjective, depending on the "l").

The thing is, when you get beyond the meaningless terms, these three break down into two categories: proletarian socialists and communists. The only measurable difference between them being their approach to how classes are to be abolished. The communists see the need to enact the process of abolishing all classes in the same period, in an uninterrupted and overlapping process. Proletarian socialists are not as clear, and often make concessions to the petty bourgeoisie -- the petty bourgeoisie seeking to impose a stagist path of post-capitalist development: capitalists first (with the petty bourgeoisie in control of the state and economy), and later the petty bourgeoisie.

But the petty bourgeoisie in power is prepared for that, and will point to their principle ("from each according to their ability, to each according to their work") and say to the workers: "But we have socialism, according to the principle you agreed to. Let us consolidate socialism, and then we will be ready to finally abolish classes and advance to communism." And, as history shows, "consolidating socialism" means the petty bourgeoisie consolidating their power.

Die Neue Zeit

4th January 2009, 06:32

This part is important. This idea of socialism as "from each according to their ability, to each according to their work" establishes a new mode of production distinct from capitalism and communism (which was how Stalin legitimized "socialism in a single country" and later his 1936 "Socialist" Constitution). What point is there to establishing a theoretical new mode of production that is distinct from both capitalism (private ownership and control) and communism (societal ownership and control) if not to justify a new class arrangement?

This is the pivot on which our political opposition to socialism turns. This is why we reject calling ourselves socialist or advocating for "socialism". We are communists; communism is our goal and what we fight for, nothing less.

Wasn't that Soviet slogan a misreading of Marx's more exact remarks in Gothakritik about the "equivalent" exchange of labour value (barring "social fund" considerations)?

The problem is that you're fighting the wrong fight. As you know well, the "'tax and spend' liberal or 'social-democratic' types" have always held that term. They have allowed Marxists and communists to use the term, but never without their omnipresence. Even in the Second International, the socialists actively fought against the communists on a political level, and, ultimately, either the communists lost the will to fight and switched sides or were thrown out. In other words, the "'tax and spend' liberal or 'social-democratic' types" (the social-statists) only allowed them to use the term as long as it was on their terms. When that control began to slip, the Marxist "socialists" (the social-abolitionists, the communists) were purged (or, in a case like Debs, tokenized for fear of losing such a relatively high-profile "socialist" to the communists, where he belonged).

Too well, I'm afraid (just look at Rafael "you could say socialist" Correa in Ecuador :glare: ).

I guess that's the safeguard of my terminology, then (hopefully Comrade Rakunin and others will at least consider "social-abolitionism"): it would be very difficult if not impossible for class collaborationists to adopt them (since they: are NOT for even the most basic ergatocracy, are hostile to the revolutionary-Marxist implications behind "proletocracy" as a substitute term, and have no abolitionist agenda whatsoever). :)

The thing is, when you get beyond the meaningless terms, these three break down into two categories: proletarian socialists and communists. The only measurable difference between them being their approach to how classes are to be abolished. The communists see the need to enact the process of abolishing all classes in the same period, in an uninterrupted and overlapping process. Proletarian socialists are not as clear, and often make concessions to the petty bourgeoisie -- the petty bourgeoisie seeking to impose a stagist path of post-capitalist development: capitalists first (with the petty bourgeoisie in control of the state and economy), and later the petty bourgeoisie.

But the petty bourgeoisie in power is prepared for that, and will point to their principle ("from each according to their ability, to each according to their work") and say to the workers: "But we have socialism, according to the principle you agreed to. Let us consolidate socialism, and then we will be ready to finally abolish classes and advance to communism." And, as history shows, "consolidating socialism" means the petty bourgeoisie consolidating their power.

Thank you very much for elaborating upon the difference between the two (I was under the impression that "proletarian socialists" want to maintain the state form, like perhaps certain DeLeonists the two of us have conversed with ;) ).

Martin Blank

4th January 2009, 10:18

Wasn't that Soviet slogan a misreading of Marx's more exact remarks in Gothakritik about the "equivalent" exchange of labour value (barring "social fund" considerations)?

It was. It was initially billed as an attempt to conceptualize the lower phase of communism, where bourgeois right would still exist in different forms. However, tying distribution and consumption ("to each according...") to labor as they did, they arbitrarily (bureaucratically) erased the role of scarcity from the equation. For Marx, bourgeois right would exist in relation to material want, as opposed to material need. (Since Marx did not invent the "from each/to each" formulation, he can only be criticized for using the term insofar as it does not adequately distinguish between relative need [or material want] and material need.)

Stalin took advantage of this formulaic defect. Since the Soviet government would provide, through forms of social welfare in housing, education, food distribution, etc., a basic level of the material "needs" (as they saw them) of the population based on how hard they worked, but bourgeois right would apply to everything else, "socialism" could be declared, based on the bastardized formulation. However, it was a "socialism" predicated on scarcity, both relative and absolute, which was anathema to any conception of the lower phase of communism held by Marx.

Too well, I'm afraid (just look at Rafael "you could say socialist" Correa in Ecuador :glare: ).

I guess that's the safeguard of my terminology, then (hopefully Comrade Rakunin and others will at least consider "social-abolitionism"): it would be very difficult if not impossible for class collaborationists to adopt them (since they: are NOT for even the most basic ergatocracy, are hostile to the revolutionary-Marxist implications behind "proletocracy" as a substitute term, and have no abolitionist agenda whatsoever). :)

True enough. My hangup with "social-abolitionism" is that it sounds like you want to abolish society or social relations in general, not simply capitalist society or social relations. But, hey, it's your neologism. :D

Thank you very much for elaborating upon the difference between the two (I was under the impression that "proletarian socialists" want to maintain the state form, like perhaps certain DeLeonists the two of us have conversed with ;) ).

LOL! Yeah. I would even see them as proletarian socialists, since theirs is similar to how and why many working-class Lassalleans took on the "people's free state" concept.

apathy maybe

4th January 2009, 15:00

While I find the discussion interesting between CL and JR, I am going to ignore it for the purpose of this post.

Instead, I'm going to repost some stuff from old threads.

Socialism is variously: the broad set of ideologies that are egalitarian and anti-capitalist (including anarchism); a socialist state; a term used to describe the intermediate period between capitalism and communism in Marxism.

Communism is variously: a classless stateless socialist (1st definition) society; the end result of history in Marxist theory; what happened/ens in the USSR, China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea and others.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=491466&postcount=5

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=738158&postcount=10

Basically, I am a socialist, because we are all socialists (in the broad sense of the word), however, I am against "state socialists" (who use the narrow sense of the word).

Die Neue Zeit

4th January 2009, 19:16

It was. It was initially billed as an attempt to conceptualize the lower phase of communism, where bourgeois right would still exist in different forms. However, tying distribution and consumption ("to each according...") to labor as they did, they arbitrarily (bureaucratically) erased the role of scarcity from the equation. For Marx, bourgeois right would exist in relation to material want, as opposed to material need. (Since Marx did not invent the "from each/to each" formulation, he can only be criticized for using the term insofar as it does not adequately distinguish between relative need [or material want] and material need.)

Stalin took advantage of this formulaic defect. Since the Soviet government would provide, through forms of social welfare in housing, education, food distribution, etc., a basic level of the material "needs" (as they saw them) of the population based on how hard they worked, but bourgeois right would apply to everything else, "socialism" could be declared, based on the bastardized formulation. However, it was a "socialism" predicated on scarcity, both relative and absolute, which was anathema to any conception of the lower phase of communism held by Marx.

"'Needs' (as they saw them) of the population based on how hard they worked" was just a cover for primitive accumulation / accumulation by dispossession (hence the end of such under Khrushchev and his infamous "communism by 1980" declaration).

So how can we popularize the "lower phase of communism" using the "from each/to each" slogan properly? "To each his want according to his work?" [That would mean mere implication that there is a basic fulfillment of needs.]

Martin Blank

4th January 2009, 21:44

So how can we popularize the "lower phase of communism" using the "from each/to each" slogan properly? "To each his want according to his work?" [That would mean mere implication that there is a basic fulfillment of needs.]

I don't know if it's really necessary to "stage" it out like that. The lower phase is a sort of pre-communism, similar to pre-industrial capitalism. If something good could be worked up, I'd be all for it. But I question how necessary it is.

sanpal

5th January 2009, 05:55

So how can we popularize the "lower phase of communism" using the "from each/to each" slogan properly?

What economic mechanism do you suppose to use for "lower phase of communism"?
Market/wages? Or non-market system of planning/realization of individual needs?
If the first - it is neither "lower" or "higher" phase of communism. It's not communism at all (choose proper from spectrum of socialism)
If the second - communism cannot be "semi - communism" but only "full communism" because of its original economic mechanism and especial communist relations within commune. The talk could be only about scale of communist sector inside of the state of proletarian socialism.

Die Neue Zeit

5th January 2009, 06:03

Comrade, it is the latter, but I don't think you've familiarized yourself yet with labour credit distribution (in Marx's time called "labour vouchers" or "labour-time vouchers"):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/labour-time-vouchers-t96793/index.html

robbo203

5th January 2009, 08:18

What is the difference between "the road to socialism, then communism"
and the "road to communism" ?

In classical Marxism, there is none. In one of the prefaces to the Communist Manifesto , Marx and Engels explained why they chose the word communism rather than socialism but indicated that what they meant by the latter was essentially the same.

The divergence between the terms was intiated by some theorists of the Second International and particularly Lenin who presided over the introduction of state capitalism in Russia and had somehow to justify this ideologically. As it happened it proved to be an utter disaster for the socialist movement and diverted millions of well meaning workers down a historical cul de sac

Robin

sanpal

5th January 2009, 11:21

Comrade, it is the latter, but I don't think you've familiarized yourself yet with labour credit distribution (in Marx's time called "labour vouchers" or "labour-time vouchers"):

sanpal:

... because of its original economic mechanism ...

It seems to me we both mean the similar things;)

davidasearles

5th January 2009, 18:08

"Communism" "Socialism" discussions remind me of a much loved non-student older female receptionist who worked in a very radicalized student association office of a college in the state of New York university system. Whenever one side or the other of some hot topic in the student association would try to get her on their side for moral support she would declare her neutrality proudly by saying, "socialist? ..... communist?...... me?.... I'm a socialite!!"

You know that the rest of the universe doesn't care about socialism or communism or the fine or not so fine distinctions between them or what sets them apart.

The goal that I would put before the world is collective worker control of the industrial means of production. It seems that "Socialsm" and "Communism" are near meaningless terms with which to influence indivual and social behaviour.

To me, and admitted I am biased, I would rather see 1 person openly advocating collective worker control of the industrial means of production and distribution than 200 advocating "socialism", "communism" or any combination of the two.

Pogue

5th January 2009, 19:29

I'd describe myself as both a socialist and an communist. And an anarchist. Or an anarcho-socialist. Depends on how I feel.

davidasearles

6th January 2009, 18:10

essentially then the naming means very little

SocialDemocracy19

10th January 2009, 18:43

robbo203

10th January 2009, 21:49

Its even defined by Marx in the Manifesto that socialism is the state ownership of everything in society before the democratic transitions to communism if you call yourself marxist you agree with this.

I dont think it does. Which section of the Manifesto are you referring to where M & E explicitly equate socialism with state ownership. They always regarded socialism and communism as synonyms

Tower of Bebel

12th January 2009, 12:11

That's because socialism is so much abused by so many. The difference between socialism and communism is not one between a class (and state) society vs. a classless (and stateless) society, but one between each according to his ability (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s3) and each according to his needs (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s4). State "socialism" (a so called equivalent of the dictatorship of the proletariat) can only be socialist in its intensions (hence the name USSR).

Real socialism is classless and therefor stateless (though the corps of the former proletarian state - the former class dictatorship - may still live on (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s4)in the form of aid for those who cannot work according to their abilities and in the form of bourgeois jurisdiction). Money and capital are abolished or replaced; that's why there are no capitalist class to oppress and no toilling classes opposed to them.
To correct myself a bit. Socialism is not stateless. What the state does however is withering away because only during the lower fase of communism, not during the political revolution, all members of former classes become equal in their relation to the means of production.

redguard2009

12th January 2009, 15:42

I don't think a socialist state automatically begins withering away (atleast no more than a newborn child starts dying of old age).

Socialism itself can be seperated into various transitional phases:

1 - The overthrow of the bourgeoisie.
2 - The elimination of private ownership and the other "10 Points".
3 - Stabilization of the socialist system (lest it collapse through coup or counter-revolution or corruption)
4 - Application of these steps on a global scale.
5 - The gradual withering away of the state towards a classless, stateless society.

This, of course, will only come after a period of several generations of global socialism, for as I've said I do not believe that true statelessness and classlessness is a goal attainable in our lifetimes even if the world revolution were to happen tomorrow.

The term state ownership really doesn't do justice to the complexity of that issue, either. There are various forms of state ownership, particularly decided by the relationship between the state and the masses. Nobody would argue, for instance, that the economy in modern China is state-controlled, but this (obviously) does not mean it is worker-controlled, for the state itself is not worker-controlled.

I'm more supportive of the phase of socialism which dominated the USSR during the 1930s; mixed state and worker control (though I have reservations about the nuances in which that state control was manifested). Organized, semi-autonomous populations of workers' co-operatives working with the centralized state government. I suppose this might get me called a Stalinist, though I'm not that supportive of Stalin himself, but there I stand.

davidasearles

12th January 2009, 18:18

I will state this again - while we argue amounst ourselves over these poinless distictions the workers are literally dying.

WHO GIVES A FUCK what the definition of a word is?

We have to eat, house ourselves, give ourselves medical attention, etc etc stc. We THE WORKERS - ALL WORKERS must establish a workers collective over the industrial means of production - and distribution.

If it wasn't so sad it would be funny. The Keystone Cops get the call and they're all running this way and that. That's what I think about when I read these stupid stupid arguments over the defintion of a word.

We speak of things that matter
In words that must be said
Can analysis beworth while?
Is the Theatre really dead?

redguard2009

12th January 2009, 20:58

robbo203

12th January 2009, 23:49

I'm more supportive of the phase of socialism which dominated the USSR during the 1930s; mixed state and worker control (though I have reservations about the nuances in which that state control was manifested). Organized, semi-autonomous populations of workers' co-operatives working with the centralized state government. I suppose this might get me called a Stalinist, though I'm not that supportive of Stalin himself, but there I stand.

OK if the USSR is or was what you call socialism then I am a vehement opponent of socialism! Like David Im not too fussed about the word although I do think those who claim that people like Karl and Fred made some kind of distinction between socialism and communism are quite wrong

What I am more concerned with is your contention that even if a revolution happened tomorrow stateless socialism or communism would still take several generations to be realised. Why for pity´s sake? This seems to be a veryconservative and defeatist attitude for someone calling him/herself a socialist to take.

It seems to me that all this talk of transitional stages after socialism has been established is a sad reflection of the extent to which may lefties have uncritically swallowed the poisonous bile of Leninism. Lenin face with the brutal fact that Russia in his time was in no way ready for socialism not least because the vast majority of the population had no inkling what it meant and would not have supported it if they had, had to justify his claim to be a socialist while busily introducing a system of state run capitalism. So state capitalism was re-labelled socialism and "socialism" was recast as a transitonal stage to communism. The invention of new transitional stages thus becomes a convenient way of endless postponing the real thing (which in any case you are only pretending to move towards becuase in reality what you want is state capitalism)

Look its pretty simple really. Communism requires two things. A relatively developed infrastrucutre to sustain a society that can support our reasonable needs on a free access/voluntary labour basis. This we have already got. The potential already exists for communism right now. What we haven´t got is the second thing - a mass movement that wants and supports communism. Lenin didnt think the workers were capable of developing a communist consciousness - only a trade union consciousness - so dont look to Leninism if you want to have a communist society!

Once you have that mass communist consciousness there is no persuasive reason whatoesver why communism could not come into being pretty soon afterwards.

Talking about communism taking generations to come about is playing into the hands of conservative cynics who dismiss such a society as a utopian dream and in so doing, help to entrench capitalism

Robin

Cumannach

13th January 2009, 01:04

davidasearles

13th January 2009, 05:00

Yeah, very poetic, etc.

Unfortunately we can't simply refer to something as "the nameless politique".

It's not that easy to simply "establish a workers collective". it has been tried and done before with varied amounts of success and failure, both in the short and long term. It is therefore quite prudent that discussion of theory and application and practice (of socialism, re the immediate post-capitalist phase) be paramount to our work.

It may be frustrating, but it's not pointless.

If words are not properly defined ideas get confused.

With respect to socialism, the concepts and ideas have to be properly understood and not mangled and confused, or a part of the struggle will be negatively impacted.

Discuss theory all you damned well please but what in hell does theory care about what something is named, or what the difference is between and word and another word.

No this is socialism! no that is socialism! no communism and socialism are both the same!

If you cannot formulate your ideas pertaining to things upon which the material survival of the workers is based - and not isms - definitely not isms - you are all done.

redguard2009

14th January 2009, 06:12

The point isn't pandering about what to call things. The point is debating the critical theoretical and practical questions pertaining to post-capitalist society. Saying something like 'I think socialism is..." isn't about trying to hammer out a correct definition of socialism. It is accepting that socialism is the best term for describing post-capitalist society and hammering out the theoretical and practical factors of that society.

OK if the USSR is or was what you call socialism then I am a vehement opponent of socialism!

So you're counter-revolutionary, then?

What I am more concerned with is your contention that even if a revolution happened tomorrow stateless socialism or communism would still take several generations to be realised. Why for pity´s sake? This seems to be a very conservative and defeatist attitude for someone calling him/herself a socialist to take.

You may see it as defeatist and conservative, but I would argue you are prescribing to a more romanticized and unrealistic expectation of communism.

Look its pretty simple really. Communism requires two things. A relatively developed infrastrucutre to sustain a society that can support our reasonable needs on a free access/voluntary labour basis. This we have already got.

Incorrect. Even in the most industrialized and developed countries, scarcity still exists. Factor in the remaining ~3 billion people on the planet who are dangerously impoverished and post-scarcity becomes a lot less immediate.

Lenin didnt think the workers were capable of developing a communist consciousness - only a trade union consciousness - so dont look to Leninism if you want to have a communist society!

You mean Lenin too believed that stateless, classless communism was not a realistic immediate objective? Yeah, that damned anti-socialist. :rolleyes:

Talking about communism taking generations to come about is playing into the hands of conservative cynics who dismiss such a society as a utopian dream and in so doing, help to entrench capitalism

No, failing to be able to recognize reality when it's slapping you across the face is the real danger to socioeconomic progress. The dangers of idealistic thinking and unrealistic expectations are paramount; even if pipedreamers like you were to carry out a socialist revolution, you would only sabotage yourselves by convincing the mass of workers that statelessness and classnessness is just over the horizon, as when they realize the truth of it, and after several decades of socialism do not feel they have advanced towards communism as fast as you claimed possible, they will turn their backs on your so-called communist dream and re-embrace more reactionary sentiments.

davidasearles

14th January 2009, 18:24

Saying something like 'I think socialism is..." isn't about trying to hammer out a correct definition of socialism. It is accepting that socialism is the best term for describing post-capitalist society and hammering out the theoretical and practical factors of that society.

Socialism shall follow capitalism like spring follows winter and what we need do is to define what socialism means?

Do we see that the main crises of the day is that the workers are not in collective control of the industrial means of production and distribution? Do we see that we must take cogent actions in order to work toward that? Whatever one wishes to call it?

Is that not our main objective? If we cannot agree on that, then why is there any matter in anything else? And if we do agree, don't we think that every other contention that does not unite us in working toward that goal ought to be just put aside until we do?

redguard2009

16th January 2009, 06:31

You're annoying me. I've tried to explain it to you, but you seem more interested on rejecting all conventional forms of scientific analysis and replacing it with pure emotional knee-jerk reaction.

I don't care what it's called. I do care what it is. But I don't like to change jerseys mid-season, and there are a lot of people who have historically smudged what it is. And I'd like to get the record straight.

davidasearles

16th January 2009, 14:16

I don't care what (socialism is) called. I do care what it is.

It's nothing but an ism. Perhaps this ism may generate some ideas of what we can do to assist in bringing about collective control of the industrial means of production and distribution but perhaps it serves as an excuse for us to eternally quibble amoungst ourselves but actually never do anything.

Oneironaut

18th January 2009, 00:41

So you're counter-revolutionary, then?
Ha. Of course anyone who disagrees with the Party decree is a counter-revolutionary even if they advocate for revolutionary workers' control.

You may see it as defeatist and conservative, but I would argue you are prescribing to a more romanticized and unrealistic expectation of communism.
You are trying to make a dead "revolutionary" theory that history has already proven to be false applicable to modern society. If only the USSR could have survived for a few more hundred years... that's when we would have finally achieved what we want. The USSR was clearly not on the road to communism. Denying that is to have shit for historical analysis.

No, failing to be able to recognize reality when it's slapping you across the face is the real danger to socioeconomic progress. The dangers of idealistic thinking and unrealistic expectations are paramount; even if pipedreamers like you were to carry out a socialist revolution, you would only sabotage yourselves by convincing the mass of workers that statelessness and classnessness is just over the horizon, as when they realize the truth of it, and after several decades of socialism do not feel they have advanced towards communism as fast as you claimed possible, they will turn their backs on your so-called communist dream and re-embrace more reactionary sentiments.
And telling workers that communism won't be achievable for hundreds of years will surely keep them on your side?

davidasearles

18th January 2009, 14:15

Communism requires two things. A relatively developed infrastrucutre to sustain a society that can support our reasonable needs on a free access/voluntary labour basis. This we have already got. The potential already exists for communism right now. What we haven´t got is the second thing - a mass movement that wants and supports communism.

There are problems associated with bundling goals (a society that can support our reasonable needs on a free access/voluntary labour basis) into a name. (communism)

Some may agree to a workers' collective but not the free access ("haven't we had too much free access by the capitalists, why add everyone else to the list of dole seekers?") But if they support estabishing workers' collective, wouldn't that enough for one to be a "commune IST"? How do these terms get hijacked by ideologues?

robbo203

25th January 2009, 11:02

OK if the USSR is or was what you call socialism then I am a vehement opponent of socialism!
So you're counter-revolutionary, then?

ROBBO: In the sense that I do not support capitalist revolution , yes indeed. The Bolshevik revolution was a bourgeois revolution which brought into being a system of state run capitalism. Worse still, it misappropriated the langauge and rhetoric of a workers revolution for its own opportunistic ends and in so doing was directly responsible for holding back the development of a genuine communist movement by leading millions of workers down the cul de sac of state capitalism

Quote:
What I am more concerned with is your contention that even if a revolution happened tomorrow stateless socialism or communism would still take several generations to be realised. Why for pity´s sake? This seems to be a very conservative and defeatist attitude for someone calling him/herself a socialist to take.
You may see it as defeatist and conservative, but I would argue you are prescribing to a more romanticized and unrealistic expectation of communism.

ROBBO: This is exactly the kind of transperently pro-capitalist sentiments that the open supporters of capitalism put forward. Communism they say is an idealistic romanticised view of the future that runs contrary to what they call human nature. At least we know what side of the fence you are on

Quote:
Look its pretty simple really. Communism requires two things. A relatively developed infrastrucutre to sustain a society that can support our reasonable needs on a free access/voluntary labour basis. This we have already got.
Incorrect. Even in the most industrialized and developed countries, scarcity still exists. Factor in the remaining ~3 billion people on the planet who are dangerously impoverished and post-scarcity becomes a lot less immediate.

ROBBO: Bourgeois economists are forever going on about scarcity being a fact of life in order to justify the existence of a market to allocate scarce resources. You are merely parroting the self same prejudices. You overlook many of the productrive advantages that a communist society will offer. One of the most significant for example is elimination of the structural waste involved in running a capitalism, Over half of the workforce in any iadvanced capitalist economy today are engaged in activities that while essential to capitalism while completelydisappear in communism - from banking to insurance from ticket collecting to pay departments and munitions workers. Immediately then the amount of labour and resoruces will be effectively doubled for socially useful production. Scarcity is not only a function of supply but also demand and demand is not unlimited. it is shaped by the kind of society we live in. Conspicuous consumption for example will become a meaningless activity in communism where goods and services will be freely available to all as the logical outcome of common ownership of the means of wealth production

Quote:
Lenin didnt think the workers were capable of developing a communist consciousness - only a trade union consciousness - so dont look to Leninism if you want to have a communist society!
You mean Lenin too believed that stateless, classless communism was not a realistic immediate objective? Yeah, that damned anti-socialist. :rolleyes:

ROBBO: Yes, that is quite true. Lenin accepted the plain fact that communism was not possible. He said at one stage that state capitalism would be a step forward for Russia. But he was not consistent or honest. He should have accepted the fact his revolution was a capitalist revolution and that it could not be anything other than because there was no mass communist consciousness in Russia then. But instead he pretended that somehow the Bolshevik revolution was something other than a capitalist revolution and distorted the meaning of socialism to accomplish this political somersault

Dave B

25th January 2009, 22:26

I think when Robbo states;

Lenin accepted the plain fact that communism was not possible. He said at one stage that state capitalism would be a step forward for Russia

He understates the case somewhat I think.

V. I. Lenin, "Left-Wing" Childishness, April 1918

If the words we have quoted provoke a smile, the following
discovery made by the "Left Communists" will provoke nothing short of
Homeric laughter. According to them, under the "Bolshevik deviation
to the right" the Soviet Republic is threatened with "evolution
towards state capitalism". They have really frightened us this time!
And with what gusto these "Left Communists" repeat this threatening
revelation in their theses and articles. . . .

2) It has not occurred to them that state capitalism would be a step
forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet
Republic. If in approximately six months' time state capitalism
became established in our Republic, this would be a great success

3) I can imagine with what noble indignation a "Left Communist" will
recoil from these words, and what "devastating criticism" he will
make to the workers against the "Bolshevik deviation to the right".
What! Transition to state capitalism in the Soviet Socialist Republic
would be a step forward?. . . Isn't this the betrayal of socialism?
Here we come to the root of the economic mistake of the "Left
Communists".

4) Thirdly, in making a bugbear of "state capitalism", they betray
their failure to understand that the Soviet state differs from the
bourgeois state economically.

5) The shell of our state capitalism (grain monopoly, state
controlled entrepreneurs and traders, bourgeois co-operators)

6) It is not state capitalism that is at war with socialism,

7) while in deeds they help only the petty bourgeoisie, serve only
this section of the population and express only its point of view by
fighting—in April 1918!!—against . . . "state capitalism". They are
wide of the mark!

8) This simple illustration in figures, which I have deliberately
simplified to the utmost in order to make it absolutely clear,
explains the present correlation of state capitalism and socialism

9) State capitalism would be a gigantic step forward

10) In the first place, economically, state capitalism is
immeasurably superior to our present economic system

11) our task is to study the state capitalism of the Germans, to
spare no effort in copying it and not shrink from adopting
dictatorial methods to hasten the copying of it. Our task is to
hasten this copying even more than Peter hastened the copying of
Western culture by barbarian Russia, and we must not hesitate to use
barbarous methods i

12) and it is one and the same road that leads from it to both large-
scale state capitalism and to socialism,

13) the economic situation now existing here without traversing the
ground which is common to state capitalism and to socialism

14) that the attempt to frighten others as well as themselves
with "evolution towards state capitalism" (Kommunist No. 1, p. 8,
col. 1) is utter theoretical nonsense.

15) In order to convince the reader that this is not the first time I
have given this "high" appreciation of state capitalism and that I
gave it before the Bolsheviks seized power I take the liberty of
quoting the following passage from my pamphlet The Impending
Catastrophe and How to Combat It , written in September 1917.

16) ". . . 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!

17) ". . . For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-
capitalist monopoly.
". . . State-monopoly capitalism is a complete material preparation
for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of
history between which and the rung called socialism there are no
intermediate rungs " (pages 27 and 28)

18) the less ought we to fear "state capitalism"?

19) From whatever side we approach the question, only one conclusion
can be drawn: the argument of the "Left Communists" about the "state
capitalism" which is alleged to be threatening us is an utter mistake
in economics and is evident proof that they are complete slaves of
petty-bourgeois ideology.

20) On the other hand, we must use the method of compromise, or of
buying off the cultured capitalists who agree to "state capitalism",
who are capable of putting it into practice and who are useful to the
proletariat as intelligent and experienced organisers of the largest
types of enterprises, which actually supply products to tens of
millions of people.

21) but are behind the most backward West-European country as regards
organising a good state capitalism,

22) The workers are not petty bourgeois. They are not afraid of large-
scale "state capitalism", they prize it as their proletarian weapon
which their Soviet power like Chief Leather Committee and Central
Textile Committee take their place by the side of the capitalists,
learn from them, establish trusts, establish "state capitalism",
which under Soviet power represents the threshold of socialism, the
condition of its firm victory.

ComradeOm

27th January 2009, 16:51

The Bolshevik revolution was a bourgeois revolution...Then one would expect that this "bourgeois revolution" was carried out by elements of the bourgeoisie, correct?

Dave B

27th January 2009, 19:59

It was more a case of by the bourgeois intelligentsia I think. So of the revolution;

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, BURNING QUESTIONS of our MOVEMENT

A. The Beginning of the Spontaneous Upsurge

It would have to be brought to them from without. The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc the theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical, and economic theories elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied classes, by intellectuals.

By their social status the founders of modern scientific socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves belonged to the bourgeois intelligentsia. In the very same way, in Russia, the theoretical doctrine of Social-Democracy arose altogether independently of the spontaneous growth of the working-class movement; it arose as a natural and inevitable outcome of the development of thought among the revolutionary socialist intelligentsia.

That is bollocks by the way as Marx and Engels discovered communism from the working class.

And;

To supplement what has been said above, we shall quote the following profoundly true and important words of Karl. Kautsky on the new draft programme of the Austrian Social-Democratic Party;

Modern socialist consciousness can arise only on the basis of profound scientific knowledge. Indeed, modern economic science is as much a condition for socialist production as, say, modern technology, and the proletariat can create neither the one nor the other, no matter how much it may desire to do so; both arise out of the modern social process. The vehicle of science is not the proletariat, but the bourgeois intelligentsia [K. K.’s italics]: it was in the minds of individual members of this stratum that modern socialism originated, and it was they who communicated it to the more intellectually developed proletarians who, in their turn, introduce it into the proletarian class struggle where conditions allow that to be done.

But even as Trotsky pointed out in a fit of pique (and in a case of the pot calling the kettle black), that within the ‘proletariat’, and I wouldn’t call Trotsky a member of the proletariat, there are those with ambitions to become bourgeois , And they therefore can end up competing with each for that honour, and fall out like thieves.

Leon Trotsky's

The Workers' State, Thermidor and Bonapartism

The Historical Analogy Must Be Revised and Corrected

Socially the proletariat is more homogeneous than the bourgeoisie, but it contains within itself an entire series of strata that become manifest with exceptional clarity following the conquest of power, during the period when the bureaucracy and a workers' aristocracy connected with it begin to take form. The smashing of the Left Opposition implied in the most direct and immediate sense the transfer of power from the hands of the revolutionary vanguard (Trotsky’s gang) into the hands of the more conservative elements among the bureaucracy and the upper crust of the working class (Stalin’s gang). The year 1924—that was the beginning of the Soviet Thermidor.

Although I think Leon was pushing the boat out a bit in implying that Stalin was ‘upper crust’.

Dave B

27th January 2009, 20:09

Engels was more modest with a botom up mentality;

Engels to Otto Von Boenigk,In Breslau, 1890;

"The biggest obstacle are ……….. the importunate super-clever
intellectuals who always think they know everything so much the
better, the less they understand it. "

"You speak of an absence of uniform insight. This exists — but on the
part of the intellectuals to stem from the aristocracy and the
bourgeoisie and who do not suspect how much they still have to learn
from the workers... "

Cumannach

27th January 2009, 21:34

That is bollocks by the way as Marx and Engels discovered communism from the working class.

What's bollocks? Were Marx and Engels members of the proletariat or the intelligentsia?

ComradeOm

28th January 2009, 12:59

[SIZE=1]It was more a case of by the bourgeois intelligentsia I thinkOf course, its the bourgeois intelligentsia. No doubt this also comprises the millions of workers who mobilised against both the Tsardom and the liberal Provisional Government, the sailors of Kronstadt, the soldiers who mutinied en masse, the hundreds of thousands of RSDLP(B) members, the soviets and MRCs that spontaneously sprung up throughout the country, and the democratic organs that endorsed the overthrow of the dictator Kerensky. All members of the bourgeois intelligentsia

Although I can guess at your response. Surely all the above were merely unwitting pawns in thrall to Lenin the Puppetmaster - a sinister figure manipulating events from behind the scenes, covering his true intentions with an endless number of texts stating his dedication to the communist cause. All his efforts at destroying both the capitalist economy and the Western bourgeoisie were similarly part of the elaborate façade that cloaked this international conspiracy. Oh if only the Russian proletariat hadn't been so stupid as to fall for this obvious ploy...:rolleyes:

marxist579

28th January 2009, 16:05

Through my research in this topic, Communism is a political system, while Socialism is an economic system. Karl Marx said that Socialism is the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and this is the transitional stage from Capitalism to Communism. Then, the final stage is Communism, an egalitarian, classless society without a state where the means of ownership is in common ownership and Marx says is the final stage in society.

Dave B

28th January 2009, 18:54

Re Comradeom 12;59

Thanks for answering your own question for me, although I probably wouldn’t have put it myself in precisely those terms, but it will do.

I prefer the way James Burnham put it ,as a (at the time) recently ex Trot theoretician of some fame and talent I think, and a former pen pal of Leon himself who obviously considered him worthy of correspondence.

He is using ‘rationalisation’ here it appears in its semi formal psychoanalytical meaning.

It would appear that his discovery of ‘Left wing Childishness’ of April 1918 was instrumental in his disillusionment, amongst other things. It was of course discussed behind closed doors it would seem amongst the Trot intellengtsia , not suitable material for the stupid foot soldiers.

We can only presume that people like Cliff and Grant were out of the loop and had not read their Lenin, and could only dream of State Capitalism in Soviet Russia

"Both communism (Leninism) and fascism claim, as do all the great social
ideologies to speak for the people as a whole for the future of
mankind. However it is interesting to notice that both provide even
in their public words for an elite or vanguard. The elite is of
course the managers and their political associates the rulers of the
new society.

Naturally the ideologies do not put it this way. As they say it the
elite represents, stands for, the people as a whole and their
interests. Fascism is more blunt about the need for the elite,
for `leadership'. Leninism worked out a more elaborate
rationalisation. The masses according to Leninism are unable to
become sufficiently educated and trained under capitalism to carry in
their own immediate persons the burdens of socialism

The mases are unable to understand in full what their interests are.
Consequently, the transition to socialism will have to be supervised
by an enlightened vanguard which `understands the historic process as
a whole' and can ably and correctly act for the interests of the
masses as a whole; like as Lenin puts it, the general staff of an
army.

Through this notion of an elite or vanguard, these ideologies thus
serve at once the two fold need of justifying the existence of a
ruling class and at the same time providing the masses with an
attitude making easy the acceptance of its rule.

This device is similar to that used by the capitalist ideologies when
they argued that capitalist were necessary in order to carry on
business and that profits for capitalists were identical with
prosperity for the people as a whole…………….The communist and fascist
doctrine is a device, and an effective one, for enlisting the support
of the masses for the interests of the new elite through an apparent
identification of those interests with the interests of the masses
themselves."

Managerial Revolution,Chapter 13.

ZeroNowhere

28th January 2009, 19:18

Through my research in this topic, Communism is a political system, while Socialism is an economic system.
Nope. That's what most liberals believe, but it's false. That's not to imply that you're a liberal, merely that that's an easy first impression to make on the subject from the information that most people are likely to find when being introduced to socialism. Hell, I believed it before I became a socialist.

Karl Marx said that Socialism is the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and this is the transitional stage from Capitalism to Communism.
No, he did not. He used 'socialism' and 'communism' as synonyms.

ComradeOm

28th January 2009, 20:14

Re Comradeom 12;59

Thanks for answering your own question for me, although I probably wouldn’t have put it myself in precisely those terms, but it will do.

I prefer the way James Burnham put it ,as a (at the time) recently ex Trot theoretician of some fame and talent I think, and a former pen pal of Leon himself who obviously considered him worthy of correspondenceOf course. For some reason, and this is a strange one, every time I ask people to demonstrate that the Russian Revolution was bourgeois in character (or a Bolshevik coup, that's another popular one) the response I get is invariably light on historical fact and heavy on out of context quotes that were outdated even in 1917. Oh if only I had a penny for every time someone assumed that What is to be Done? was a substitute for an actual history of the Revolution

But you are right of course, it was rude of me to put words in your mouth in the above post. So I'll ask again. Now - bearing in mind we are discussing a revolution that occurred over 90 years ago and is thus no longer in a matter of abstract theory but actual historical fact - what particular characteristics of the events of 1917 convince you that, contrary to all appearances, the Russian Revolution was bourgeois in character?

The mases are unable to understand in full what their interests are.
Consequently, the transition to socialism will have to be supervised
by an enlightened vanguard which `understands the historic process as
a whole' and can ably and correctly act for the interests of the
masses as a whole; like as Lenin puts it, the general staff of an
army.Ah, I wonder where the real elitism and arrogance lies here. In reality the Bolshevik Party of autumn 1917 was a mass movement that enjoyed the overwhelming support of the Russian proletariat (as demonstrated by both the soviets and Constituent Assembly). Were these workers, probably the most revolutionary in European history, "unable to understand in full what their interests were"?

Cumannach

28th January 2009, 20:28

No, he did not. He used 'socialism' and 'communism' as synonyms.

He said the first phase of Communism is the political dictatorship of the proletariat and is a transition to the second phase of Communism. Socialism is used by many as a synonym for the first phase, the transition.

ZeroNowhere

28th January 2009, 20:46

He said the first phase of Communism is the political dictatorship of the proletariat and is a transition to the second phase of Communism. Socialism is used by many as a synonym for the first phase, the transition.
His "first phase of communism" is certainly not the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is only differentiated from the higher phase of socialism by the fact that the lower phase uses labour credits, while the higher one does not. It's certainly not meant as merely a 'transitional phase' or whatever.

Dave B

28th January 2009, 21:33

Hi Comradeom

We actually had a longish debate on Libcom recently in which I participated on the Russian revolution. It tended to spill over from one thread to another as is the way of things, but I ‘think’ most of it was on the thread;

Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution

Last post; Jan 5 2009

I can’t provide links as on this hierarchical site, with its special privileges etc, as I am still only a ‘junior revolutionary’, but that is your loss I think.

We had Leninists arguing their corner, quite well and eloquently, some of whom are on this list I think.

That the Bolsheviks had significant support in ‘1917’ is not in dispute.
What might be disputed is that it was based on unrealisable and false promises made by the Bolsheviks to get their vote and into power, and sweeping up mass support etc.

That basic concept should be familiar even if you don’t think it is applicable in ‘your’ case.

The claim is that once the promises turned sour, as they quickly did, the Bolsheviks lost support and responded to the threat of losing power by state repression.

I would like to point out at this stage that I have plenty of intelligent friends who are Leninist foot soldiers. So perhaps I understand were you and they are coming from better than you imagine.

Hopefully I have already demonstrated that I am fairly familiar with the works of Lenin and Trotsky.

I am not an intellectual and I despise them, I am a chemist who works in a food factory in quality control.

I also get irritated by people who dismiss arguments by telling them to go and read a book.

There aren’t many non standard versions of the Russian Revolution, E H Carr’s as one out of the Leninist apologist stable is probably better than most.

For something different, and for no other reason, you could try Brovkins ‘The Mensheviks After October’.

I understand your position, but are you sure you understand mine?

You can put words in my mouth if you want as an argumentative technique , if it is a problem for me I am quite capable of dealing with it in a rational manner.

Cumannach

28th January 2009, 21:45

His "first phase of communism" is certainly not the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is only differentiated from the higher phase of socialism by the fact that the lower phase uses labour credits, while the higher one does not. It's certainly not meant as merely a 'transitional phase' or whatever.

Are you just stating your opinion on the matter or are you actually trying to say that the dictatorship of the proletariat was not a part of Marx's thought?

ComradeOm

29th January 2009, 12:22

That the Bolsheviks had significant support in ‘1917’ is not in dispute.
What might be disputed is that it was based on unrealisable and false promises made by the Bolsheviks to get their vote and into power, and sweeping up mass support etcNow here you fall prey to the same accusation that you level at Lenin - believing the proletariat too stupid and too insular to achieve class conciousness. Can you really look at all the events of 1917, with the incredible actions and strides of the Russian workers, and proclaim that this was not a revolutionary movement? If not then how could a revolutionary proletariat, ie one that is fully class concious, be duped by a group of charlatans?

Another amusing irony here is that here you are admitting that the Bolsheviks had a communist programme that appealed to the revolutionary masses. They were revolutionary in words, revolutionary in deeds, and enjoyed the unquestioned support of the working class*. Frankly you'll have to present some pretty strong evidence to convince me that this was all an illusion and that the revolution was indeed bourgeois in character. So far you've markedly avoided producing anything concrete

*This point has to be emphasised - the Bolsheviks did not just enjoy 'significant' support, from the beginning of autumn 1917 they had established a clear majority in the soviets. In the Second Congress they had more delegates than every other party combined. This is because they were the only party untainted by collaboration with a bourgeois government, they were the only party adamantly opposed to the Kerensky dictatorship, and they were the only party in step with the revolutionary proletariat. Yet you assert that this was in fact all some bourgeois plot!

The claim is that once the promises turned sour, as they quickly did, the Bolsheviks lost support and responded to the threat of losing power by state repressionAnd because the Bolsheviks were unable to direct the country towards socialism they were liars from the start? A curious leap of logic and one made without any regard to class analysis

Its unfortunately true that there was a brief Menshevik renaissance in Petrograd and Moscow but this was a protest against the Bolsheviks (as opposed to in favour of the Mensheviks or SRs) and the complete economic collapse that had followed the beginning of the Civil War and the hardships of War Communism. For example, the population of Petrograd was 2.5m at its wartime peak. In June 1918 it had fallen to 1.5m. In 1920 there were a mere 750k people in the city and life had become a "constant battle to survive"*. Now its absurd to argue that this was a some bizarrely deliberate Bolshevik policy to starve the cities (although no doubt there are some who argue exactly that) or that this was Lenin's hidden plan all along. The reality is far more straightforward; the Bolsheviks had inherited a crashing economy and state apparatus - both of which would have to be destroyed and rebuilt from the ground up from 1918 onwards - and were struggling to survive against the growing backlash from the provincial nobility, (the real) bourgeoisie, and foreign imperialist powers in a rapidly developing Civil War. Hardships were inevitable - the were massive job losses and famine stalked the land - and so was the sudden unpopularity of the ruling party. That does not, and cannot, change the fact that the majority of the proletariat continued to support the, still extremely weak, Bolshevik government

Despite this the Bolsheviks pressed on with their plans to complete the Revolution. Land seizures by the peasantry during 1917 were promptly legalised (which the Bolsheviks did in six days but had eluded the bourgeois Mensheviks and SRs for six months), the grand bourgeoisie was effectively wiped out as a political class, and War Communism actually achieved the destruction of currency based transactions. All very odd outcomes for a supposedly bourgeois revolution :confused:

*[Gatrell, The Economic Transformation of the Soviet Union]

I would like to point out at this stage that I have plenty of intelligent friends who are Leninist foot soldiers. So perhaps I understand were you and they are coming from better than you imagineThe problem seems to be that you are making a distinction between yourself and the "Leninist foot soldiers". You argument is based primarily on idealogical differences that almost compel you to rail against the 'evils of Leninism'. In this picture the Bolsheviks can't possibly have been popular without some sort of mass deception because this would completely invalidate the idea that the revolution was 'stolen' by 'authoritarians'

chegitz guevara

29th January 2009, 18:28

Lenin didnt think the workers were capable of developing a communist consciousness - only a trade union consciousness - so dont look to Leninism if you want to have a communist society!
Robin

This is not true. What Lenin wrote was that, if you looked around (in 1901), the history of all countries, up to that point, had showed that the workers, by themselves, had only developed a trade unionist consciousness. He never said the workers were incapable of doing so, merely that they hadn't. Once, however, those ideas were developed by bourgeois intellectuals, for what else would you call Marx and Engels, that the workers were perfectly capable of creating a revolutionary movement . . . unless diverted by reformists. And if we look at history, it's true.

If you want to argue against Lenin, you need to understand what he actually wrote, and not what his latter day detractors have claimed he wrote.

And telling workers that communism won't be achievable for hundreds of years will surely keep them on your side?

The job of revolutionaries is to be honest, even when the truth hurts. If we are to lie to them to achieve our own ends, then we are no better than the capitalists who exploit them. Even if the only step we can take post revolution is to put all political power in the hands of the worker class, that will be an immense step forward from today, and would still be worth all of the pain and suffering it would take to achieve it.

Personally, I feel that, not only will it take generations to achieve communism, it will take generations to achieve socialism. Not until those born under the new order have taken control, those who know no other way but solidarity, socialism, and democracy have gained power, will we transition to a socialist mode of production. Rather than telling workers that it's pointless to make the revolution, it means we need to make it sooner, so we'll still be alive when the younger generations take over.

ROBBO: Yes, that is quite true. Lenin accepted the plain fact that communism was not possible. He said at one stage that state capitalism would be a step forward for Russia. But he was not consistent or honest. He should have accepted the fact his revolution was a capitalist revolution and that it could not be anything other than because there was no mass communist consciousness in Russia then. But instead he pretended that somehow the Bolshevik revolution was something other than a capitalist revolution and distorted the meaning of socialism to accomplish this political somersault

Lenin was quite honest about the prospects for socialism in Russia. He said, without the aid of the workers in the industrialized countries coming to their aid, it was impossible. That doesn't mean that the Bolshevik revolution wasn't something other than a bourgeois revolution. In fact, the bourgeois revolution was completed in February, eight months before the Bolsheviks were elected to power. It was a workers revolution, made for the purpose of sparking the revolution in Western Europe. Unfortunately for the human race, things didn't work out. Doesn't mean they shouldn't have tried. Had there been a more capable leadership in Germany, those alive today would be celebrating the bold risk taken by Lenin.