Terminology question - What is Communism, exactly?
I've noticed that there are multiple views on the transition from capitalism to communism. The way I see many people describe it as Marx saw it, vaguely, is Capitalism > Revolutionary Dictatorship > Lower Stage of Communism > Higher Stage of Communism.
From what it seems like, Lenin decided to term the Lower Stage of Communism as simply "socialism," and called his Soviet Union state-capitalist in transition to socialism (lower stage of communism). Stalin, however, saw it as already at socialism. Getting back to the point:
I've traditionally mistaken the lower stage of communism as synonymous with proletarian dictatorship. Are these separate, and I know it's incorrect to phrase it this was, phases? How can the lower stage of communism lack a state? How does it regulate the "bourgeois right" of limited inequality without a State and its tools like the Police? My other question is, for the traditional Marxist here, what is the economy of the DotP? Is it State Management? If so, is it the same as Stalinist command economics? How does it differ from that of the latter phases of communist society? And how long does the Revolutionary dictatorship last? Sorry for the plethora of questions, please answer simply considering I'm fairly new to Marxism
as a last question (sorry!), what is the difference between a capitalist accruing surplus product and society accruing it? essentially I'm wanting to understand how exploitation doesn't occur in Socialism.
It's still very much in development, but I'm going to throw these here anyway:
http://marxistpedia.mwzip.com/wiki/S..._of_production
http://marxistpedia.mwzip.com/wiki/D...he_proletariat
In classical Marxism, yes, the dictatorship and the first phase of communism are separate. (Phrases is correct by the way). It has no state because class antagonisms have ceased. The "bourgeois right" (disagree here with Marx) is regulated by the free association of producers.
The transition to socialism is capital in negation, and the social relations of production are actively being transformed to freely associated labour. This is different from Stalinist command economies which operated on wage-labour, and no transformation of the relations of production occurred. It differs in that freely associated labour has not been fully achieved, so there's still commodity production to varying extends. The dictatorship lasts for as long as there's class antagonisms. If the whole world was Russia and let's assume the Bolsheviks did correct, then the dictatorship would've lasted until 1922 -- until the reaction was beaten. Weird analogy, but ya know.
In socialism there's collective appropriation. But I'm not entirely sure how to answer your question.
Quote:
It's still very much in development, but I'm going to throw these here anyway:
http://marxistpedia.mwzip.com/wiki/S..._of_production
http://marxistpedia.mwzip.com/wiki/D...he_proletariat
In classical Marxism, yes, the dictatorship and the first phase of communism are separate. (Phrases is correct by the way). It has no state because class antagonisms have ceased. The "bourgeois right" (disagree here with Marx) is regulated by the free association of producers.
The transition to socialism is capital in negation, and the social relations of production are actively being transformed to freely associated labour. This is different from Stalinist command economies which operated on wage-labour, and no transformation of the relations of production occurred. It differs in that freely associated labour has not been fully achieved, so there's still commodity production to varying extends. The dictatorship lasts for as long as there's class antagonisms. If the whole world was Russia and let's assume the Bolsheviks did correct, then the dictatorship would've lasted until 1922 -- until the reaction was beaten. Weird analogy, but ya know.
In socialism there's collective appropriation. But I'm not entirely sure how to answer your question.
Great response, thanks. But what I'm essentially asking is if the Means of Production are, I suppose one could say, "nationalized" by the Worker's State? Of course in combination with production for-use and self-management/workplace democracy.
Also, Trotsky makes a point in that "where there is scarcity, there is rationing. Where there is rationing, there is lines. Where there is lines, there is a police/administrative body to enforce who-gets-what." (Of course, in my words). In other words, as you can see, he's saying that the State will only cease to exist when scarcity itself ceases to exist, which really can only be realized much longer after the Working Class has triumphed on the world scale. Wouldn't this essentially mean the lower stage of Communism has a "state"? I tend to agree with Trotsky here. I understand (judging by your Marxpedia; good job by the way) you probably believe we are already in a position where we have achieved superabundance (just incorrect allocation), and while I agree with that, it would obviously take time, especially on a world scale, to organize production on a social basis. Class consciousness is never unanimous, I may add.
Quote:
Great response, thanks. But what I'm essentially asking is if the Means of Production are, I suppose one could say, "nationalized" by the Worker's State? Of course in combination with production for-use and self-management/workplace democracy.
It's important to get right what Marx meant by "the state" or by the proletarian dictatorship, which is fairly well outlined in this article:
http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative...the-state.html
To sum up the main point of the article wrt the dictatorship of the proletariat, Marx saw the worker's state as a kind of council government with revocable delegates. The "state" in the context more has to do with the armed working class protecting the political power of these governments, against the bourgeoisie, while the proletariat works to socialize the means of production. More over, think about M&E say about the Paris Commune. They considered that the first historical example of a proletarian dictatorship, but the characterization of the "nationalization" in Paris was much different from bourgeois nationalization.
Quote:
Also, Trotsky makes a point in that "where there is scarcity, there is rationing. Where there is rationing, there is lines. Where there is lines, there is a police/administrative body to enforce who-gets-what." (Of course, in my words). In other words, as you can see, he's saying that the State will only cease to exist when scarcity itself ceases to exist, which really can only be realized much longer after the Working Class has triumphed on the world scale. Wouldn't this essentially mean the lower stage of Communism has a "state"? I tend to agree with Trotsky here. I understand (judging by your Marxpedia; good job by the way) you probably believe we are already in a position where we have achieved superabundance (just incorrect allocation), and while I agree with that, it would obviously take time, especially on a world scale, to organize production on a social basis. Class consciousness is never unanimous, I may add.
Trotsky made a wrong formulation. Rationing, as Marx envisaged it, doesn't require "lines" nor "police" to enforce the "lines." I don't think that was necessarily true back then, but it certainly isn't true now. Labor hours accrued can be placed on a debit system, and delivery of goods can be made as part of the normal supply chain. Trotsky wasn't the most imaginative person and -- I agree with Krupskaya (Lenin's window) here -- he did not have a firm grasp on Marxism or what Marx said, which lead him to insane theories about the "deformed workers state," which many of his followers like CLR James and Raya Dunayevskaya (both who had tight grasps on Marx and, to a lesser extent, Hegel) broke from him with to formulate the idea that the Soviet Union was state-capitalist. Lenin had a firmer grasp on Marx, as opposed to Trotsky, but he still made some fairly fundamental errors and covered them up as "necessary" because of Russia's backwardness.
"Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat." - Engels
https://www.marxists.org/archive/mar...1/prin-com.htm
Quote:
It's important to get right what Marx meant by "the state" or by the proletarian dictatorship, which is fairly well outlined in this article:
http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative...the-state.html
To sum up the main point of the article wrt the dictatorship of the proletariat, Marx saw the worker's state as a kind of council government with revocable delegates. The "state" in the context more has to do with the armed working class protecting the political power of these governments, against the bourgeoisie, while the proletariat works to socialize the means of production. More over, think about M&E say about the Paris Commune. They considered that the first historical example of a proletarian dictatorship, but the characterization of the "nationalization" in Paris was much different from bourgeois nationalization.
Trotsky made a wrong formulation. Rationing, as Marx envisaged it, doesn't require "lines" nor "police" to enforce the "lines." I don't think that was necessarily true back then, but it certainly isn't true now. Labor hours accrued can be placed on a debit system, and delivery of goods can be made as part of the normal supply chain. Trotsky wasn't the most imaginative person and -- I agree with Krupskaya (Lenin's window) here -- he did not have a firm grasp on Marxism or what Marx said, which lead him to insane theories about the "deformed workers state," which many of his followers like CLR James and Raya Dunayevskaya (both who had tight grasps on Marx and, to a lesser extent, Hegel) broke from him with to formulate the idea that the Soviet Union was state-capitalist. Lenin had a firmer grasp on Marx, as opposed to Trotsky, but he still made some fairly fundamental errors and covered them up as "necessary" because of Russia's backwardness.
Did the commune "nationalize" anything? I thought it was on the road, but only got to a few self-managed workplaces.
Quote:
Did the commune "nationalize" anything? I thought it was on the road, but only got to a few self-managed workplaces.
Well, if "nationalization" is the act of the state taking over private property, and if we consider the Paris Commune a kind of worker's state, then yeah, they did, to an extent. capitalists who had abandoned their shop were taken over by the workers. if we consider the Commune a worker's state, then that's sort of a
de facto "nationalization."