"State-capitalist monopoly [for] the whole people" in one "country"?

[Die Neue Zeit]

To start off, I am aware that "state-capitalist monopoly [for] the whole people" (Lenin), in which "wage labour and money [...] will be found indispensable until something better is discovered" (Kautsky), is not the lower phase of the communist mode of production.

That said, to what extent is constructing or even "achieving" the former possible or not possible in a single "country"? I use quotation marks because today's national borders are, on the whole, not the basis for much more rational economic regionalization (with sufficient geography, geological elements, population, etc.). It would be quite a mouthful if I asked about constructing or "achieving" the Kautsky-Lenin paradigm within a single rational economic region that is neither a large continent nor a small state.

[criticalrealist]

Interesting that you mention "monopoly capitalism." I am a regular reader of the Monthly Review, which focuses on that subject (especially the work of Paul Sweezy and John Bellamy Foster) - the underdevelopment school.

[TomLeftist]

Hi, yeah I believe that even though it is not a perfect system. I think that a state-capitalist monopoly capitalist would lower internet monthly services from 50 dollars to about 30 dollars. Electricity monthly bills from 200 per month to about 120 per month. Because under the current type of capitalism that exist in most countries (neoliberal-capitalism) life is getting too damn expensive. It is so inflationary and so anti-price controls. That many services in USA offer like a special thing "to freeze prices for 12 months". In other words, the neoliberalism-capitalism is so inflationary that the normal thing is for prices to go up all the time


But I am not a political economist, I don't a lot about it. So I don't know if in our present global neoliberal-capitalist system, it is possible to implement state-capitalism monopoly-capitalism in 1 or 2 countries, while all the other ones have neoliberal-capitalist economic models

To start off, I am aware that "state-capitalist monopoly [for] the whole people" (Lenin), in which "wage labour and money [...] will be found indispensable until something better is discovered" (Kautsky), is not the lower phase of the communist mode of production.


That said, to what extent is constructing or even "achieving" the former possible or not possible in a single "country"? I use quotation marks because today's national borders are, on the whole, not the basis for much more rational economic regionalization (with sufficient geography, geological elements, population, etc.). It would be quite a mouthful if I asked about constructing or "achieving" the Kautsky-Lenin paradigm within a single rational economic region that is neither a large continent nor a small state.

[willowtooth]

To start off, I am aware that "state-capitalist monopoly [for] the whole people" (Lenin), in which "wage labour and money [...] will be found indispensable until something better is discovered" (Kautsky), is not the lower phase of the communist mode of production.

That said, to what extent is constructing or even "achieving" the former possible or not possible in a single "country"? I use quotation marks because today's national borders are, on the whole, not the basis for much more rational economic regionalization (with sufficient geography, geological elements, population, etc.). It would be quite a mouthful if I asked about constructing or "achieving" the Kautsky-Lenin paradigm within a single rational economic region that is neither a large continent nor a small state.

Why create the one party state if not too declare war against the rest of the world?

[ckaihatsu]

Hi, yeah I believe that even though it is not a perfect system. I think that a state-capitalist monopoly capitalist would lower internet monthly services from 50 dollars to about 30 dollars. Electricity monthly bills from 200 per month to about 120 per month. Because under the current type of capitalism that exist in most countries (neoliberal-capitalism) life is getting too damn expensive.

Regarding the *consumer*, I've found the pricing landscape *lately* to be far more competitive, with lower prices, than 3 decades or more ago -- this is because the technologies you're referring to, Internet and electricity, are far more mature, ubiquitous, and competitive than they used to be. It's in the *past* that monopolies had been the norm for such, with such governmental protectionism to be expected for nascent technologies that require huge up-front investments in infrastructure, for viability -- and phone service, too.

The reason it *feels* more expensive is because wages have stagnated, so the opportunities for *getting* a buck are fewer, with more outlay required -- this, btw, is the very definition of *deflation*, where the exchange medium, money, is more difficult to get, but more valuable in terms of then-conferred purchasing power.

It is so inflationary and so anti-price controls. That many services in USA offer like a special thing "to freeze prices for 12 months".

If you're referring to actual offers in the marketplace, these terms would be because of *uncertainty* going-forward, to where businesses want to 'lock-in' some kind of customer base, even if they have to sacrifice being able to raise their prices for the next 12 months -- again, this isn't *inflation*, but rather *deflation*, where each dollar is seen as being relatively more valuable (compared to its face-value), and worth chasing-after.

In other words, the neoliberalism-capitalism is so inflationary that the normal thing is for prices to go up all the time

The inflation rate lately has been relatively *low*, historically:





This means that -- in the current environment -- capital for investment isn't being sought-after, but money's power in the real economy is formidable. This again points to an economic regime of *deflation*, including less *velocity*, where, despite massive increases in the overall money *supply*, general economic activity is not forthcoming -- a standstill.

I also want to note that we should make sure to see the inherent *class divide* in these seemingly contradictory dynamics -- if capital isn't being needed (historically low interest rates) then why does the use of money have such a bang-for-the-buck -- ? There's a distinction to be made between the *financial* economy and the *real* economy -- regular people *need* a relatively higher velocity (economic activity) in the real economy so that everyday day-to-day stuff can get done, but this isn't going to happen if the 'higher', *abstracted* *financial* economy isn't moving that much, due to the unavailability of appropriate investment opportunities, for foreseeable returns.

This is why we can *blame capitalism*, since the current low-growth regime is now like a grindstone around everyone's necks, with everyday expenses in the real world still requiring funding, but at the same time there's not enough *overall growth* (and/or velocity) to keep up with these regular costs of life and living.

Neoliberalist capitalism is *class warfare*, where the public is expected to pay-in to the pool of public funds, but then the public isn't seeing enough benefits *back* to them for their economic participation in this way, due to government cuts -- austerity -- in social services that *do* benefit people on a common basis. Instead the public monies are handed over to the *financial* (and warfare) sectors of government funding, just to prop-up the class-divided status quo, as dysfunctional as they are.

But I am not a political economist, I don't a lot about it. So I don't know if in our present global neoliberal-capitalist system, it is possible to implement state-capitalism monopoly-capitalism in 1 or 2 countries, while all the other ones have neoliberal-capitalist economic models

You seem to be *praising* a state-monopoly form of capitalism, which sounds synonymous to *Stalinism*, at best.

There's no guarantee that a nationalization of the entire economy would wind-up being beneficial on-the-ground to workers and people in the real economy. As long as financial markets exist (capitalism) in *some* form, the government of whatever formulation could just continue to hand over public monies to the markets for the sake of balancing the balance sheets.

(Perhaps you mean something more along the lines of *non-market* nationalization, which would be more like Stalinism *proper*, though it would still have to exist at the *geopolitical*-capitalism level, meaning *international* friction as we saw in the 20th century.)

Why create the one party state if not too declare war against the rest of the world?

This would basically be a *strategy*, to realize the benefits of hierarchical organization that the capitalist class currently enjoys, with its corporate directorates, militaries, and bureaucracy.

*When* would the working class need the inherent functional benefits of hierarchical organization -- ? Certainly in a period of class antagonism, which is ongoing anyway.

[willowtooth]

This would basically be a *strategy*, to realize the benefits of hierarchical organization that the capitalist class currently enjoys, with its corporate directorates, militaries, and bureaucracy.

*When* would the working class need the inherent functional benefits of hierarchical organization -- ? Certainly in a period of class antagonism, which is ongoing anyway.

Doesn't a one party state simply take a feudalistic society and make them a capitalist society by creating "a people's king"? Wouldnt the USA during WW2 be classified as state capitalist? The FDR era (which we could call Rooseveltism) almost completely controlled the means of production. The economic build up as in Russia, brought the USA from a loosely connected band of confederated states into the single greatest unified military power in the world. When the war was over the state began too immediately collapse and private control began slowly creeping back in both countries, when there was no threat of war the only thing left is to get rich

[ckaihatsu]

Doesn't a one party state simply take a feudalistic society and make them a capitalist society by creating "a people's king"?

I think this is people's imaginations getting the better of them -- the era we're in now is different than that of the race-to-industrialization 20th century for behind-the-curve nations.

I'm not *advocating* anything like a one-party state or 'a people's king' -- here's my standing position:

[T]he vanguard could exist *at-large* (in-general), as it does today, without any intentional formal formulation or vehicle -- a vanguard party may *have* to exist, in addition, to cover any situations where a decisive *decision*, or command, would be required. I'd imagine the party would be derived from the (general) vanguard as-a-whole, but with the baggage of having to have discrete membership -- organizational overhead, basically.

The *instrument* of this vanguard / party would be the workers state (at whatever size and extents worldwide), and, from my quote above, it should be thought-of as a routine revolutionary duty, so that it exists and is-empowered as a total *institution*, but one that has no careerist-type 'specialists' over the medium- or long-term (maybe 2 years within any 20 years, subject to adjustment according to realities). I assume that much, if not all, of its workings would be transparent anyway, so certainly its actions and functioning would be the subject of news and discussions far beyond its internal personnel anyway.

The state.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/19...57#post2877057


---

Wouldnt the USA during WW2 be classified as state capitalist? The FDR era (which we could call Rooseveltism) almost completely controlled the means of production. The economic build up as in Russia, brought the USA from a loosely connected band of confederated states into the single greatest unified military power in the world. When the war was over the state began too immediately collapse and private control began slowly creeping back in both countries, when there was no threat of war the only thing left is to get rich

We could call this period that of *Bonapartism*, for the reasons you've outlined. Ditto for England during the same time.

The U.S. did a *lot* of war profiteering during WWII, such as selling weapons to both sides.

[willowtooth]

I think this is people's imaginations getting the better of them -- the era we're in now is different than that of the race-to-industrialization 20th century for behind-the-curve nations.

I'm not *advocating* anything like a one-party state or 'a people's king' -- here's my standing position:




The state.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/19...57#post2877057


---





We could call this period that of *Bonapartism*, for the reasons you've outlined. Ditto for England during the same time.

The U.S. did a *lot* of war profiteering during WWII, such as selling weapons to both sides.

So state capitalism can be used to take a country out feudalism, and into a capitalist society, and then from there can progress to socialism correct? So what societies are feudalistic/slave/primitive today?

[ckaihatsu]

---

So state capitalism can be used to take a country out feudalism, and into a capitalist society, and then from there can progress to socialism correct? So what societies are feudalistic/slave/primitive today?

Trotsky put forward his conception of "permanent revolution" as an explanation of how socialist revolutions could occur in societies that had not achieved advanced capitalism. Part of his theory is the supposed impossibility of "socialism in one country". Trotsky's theory also argues, first, that the bourgeoisie in late-developing capitalist countries are incapable of developing the productive forces in such a manner as to achieve the sort of advanced capitalism which will fully develop an industrial proletariat. Second, that the proletariat can and must, therefore, seize social, economic, and political power, leading an alliance with the peasantry.

Trotsky's conception of Permanent Revolution is based on his understanding, drawing on the work of fellow Russian Alexander Parvus, that a Marxist analysis of events began with the international level of development, both economic and social. National peculiarities are only an expression of the contradictions in the world system. According to this perspective, the tasks of the Bourgeois Democratic Revolution could not be achieved by the bourgeoisie itself in a reactionary period of world capitalism. The situation in the backward and colonial countries, particularly Russia, bore this out.[9]

Trotsky believed that a new workers' state would not be able to hold out against the pressures of a hostile capitalist world unless socialist revolutions quickly took hold in other countries as well. This theory was advanced in opposition to the position held by the Stalinist faction within the Bolshevik Party that "socialism in one country" could be built in the Soviet Union.

Trotsky's theory was developed in opposition to the Social Democratic theory that undeveloped countries must pass through two distinct revolutions. First the Bourgeois Democratic Revolution, which socialists would assist, and at a later stage, the Socialist Revolution with an evolutionary period of capitalist development separating those stages. This is often referred to as the Theory of Stages, the Two Stage Theory or Stagism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_revolution

[willowtooth]

---

I don't know what Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution has to do with what I wrote

[ckaihatsu]

I don't know what Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution has to do with what I wrote

You were asking about national liberation, through to socialism, and Trotsky addresses that.

Any societies that *still* haven't industrialized, or are hopelessly behind-the-norm, would be considered 'backward' in terms of development.

I'll add that 'advanced' countries would have to help-out lesser-developed countries in a time of proletarian upheaval, for an overall transition to socialism.

[willowtooth]

You were asking about national liberation, through to socialism, and Trotsky addresses that.

Any societies that *still* haven't industrialized, or are hopelessly behind-the-norm, would be considered 'backward' in terms of development.

I'll add that 'advanced' countries would have to help-out lesser-developed countries in a time of proletarian upheaval, for an overall transition to socialism.

Not really what I meant but I see what you mean I was more referring to marx's opinions on russian communism and the existence of a "key to history"

Now, what application to Russia could my critic draw from my historical outline? Only this: if Russia tries to become a capitalist nation, in imitation of the nations of western Europe, and in recent years she has taken a great deal of pains in this respect, she will not succeed without first having transformed a good part of her peasants into proletarians; and after that, once brought into the lap of the capitalist regime, she will be subject to its inexorable laws, like other profane nations. That is all. But this is too much for my critic. He absolutely must needs metamorphose my outline of the genesis of capitalism in western Europe into a historico-philosophical theory of the general course, fatally imposed upon all peoples, regardless of the historical circumstances in which they find themselves placed, in order to arrive finally at that economic formation which insures with the greatest amount of productive power of social labor the most complete development of man. But I beg his pardon. He does me too much honor and too much shame at the same time. Let us take one example. In different passages of Capital, I have made allusion to the fate which overtook the plebeians of ancient Rome.

Originally, they were free peasants tilling, every man for himself, their own piece of land. In the course of Roman history, they were expropriated. The same movement which separated them from their means of production and of subsistence, implied not only the formation of large landed properties but also the formation of large monetary capitals. Thus, one fine day, there were on the one hand free men stripped of everything save their labor power, and on the other, for exploiting this labor, the holders of all acquired wealth. What happened? The Roman proletarian became not a wage-earning worker, but an indolent mob, more abject than the former “poor whites” in the southern lands of the United States; and by their side was unfolded not a capitalist but a slave mode of production. Hence, strikingly analogical events, occurring, however, in different historical environments, led to entirely dissimilar results.

By studying each of these evolutions separately, and then comparing them, one will easily find the key to these phenomena, but one will never succeed with the master-key of a historico-philosophical theory whose supreme virtue consists in being supra-historical.

https://www.marxists.org/history/eto.../no04/marx.htm

[Die Neue Zeit]

You seem to be *praising* a state-monopoly form of capitalism, which sounds synonymous to *Stalinism*, at best.

There's no guarantee that a nationalization of the entire economy would wind-up being beneficial on-the-ground to workers and people in the real economy. As long as financial markets exist (capitalism) in *some* form, the government of whatever formulation could just continue to hand over public monies to the markets for the sake of balancing the balance sheets.

(Perhaps you mean something more along the lines of *non-market* nationalization, which would be more like Stalinism *proper*, though it would still have to exist at the *geopolitical*-capitalism level, meaning *international* friction as we saw in the 20th century.)

Although you were responding to another poster, I would like to clarify that the Kautsky-Lenin model eliminates financial markets. Of the three markets in capitalism - labour, capital, consumer goods and services:

1) There's no capital market.

2) The existence of a labour market is a toss-up between a fully socialized labour market (much more than Hyman Minsky's public employer of last resort for consumer services advocacy) and no labour market at all; in either scenario, every able-bodied person would be a public-sector employee.

3) The existence of a consumer goods and services market is up in the air; traditional "market-socialist" models allow for such existence.

As can be seen from the three points above, the raw economics of the Kautsky-Lenin model (leaving aside political factors) range from traditional "market socialism" to Soviet directive planning from 1928-1965.

Wouldnt the USA during WW2 be classified as state capitalist? The FDR era (which we could call Rooseveltism) almost completely controlled the means of production.

Whether the US during WWII was state-capitalist or not is up for debate. State-capitalist monopoly is qualitatively way more public ownership-oriented than even the Nazi war economy.

[ckaihatsu]

So state capitalism can be used to take a country out feudalism, and into a capitalist society, and then from there can progress to socialism correct? So what societies are feudalistic/slave/primitive today?

Not really what I meant but I see what you mean I was more referring to marx's opinions on russian communism and the existence of a "key to history"



https://www.marxists.org/history/eto.../no04/marx.htm

In that excerpt Marx is indicating that ingrained into historical materialism is the ruling class perspective of equating 'the greatest amount of productive power of social labor' with 'the most complete development of man'.

In other words the sacrifice of the here-and-now for labor towards future material developments -- like Calvinism -- is an *ideology* that assumes such civilizational material gains will then reciprocally benefit those who put in the labor to construct them in the first place, the working class.

In terms of 'getting out of feudalism', we're living in the best era for that because machinery has been taking on more and more of the 'heavy lifting' traditionally done by human labor, giving us the worldwide civilization -- though mixed and uneven -- of today.

But in terms of *revolution* this use of machinery needs to be *globalized* and its benefits shared-commonly / 'socialized', no matter if any country is less-developed than the developed world.

[ckaihatsu]

Although you were responding to another poster, I would like to clarify that the Kautsky-Lenin model eliminates financial markets. Of the three markets in capitalism - labour, capital, consumer goods and services:

1) There's no capital market.

Okay.

2) The existence of a labour market is a toss-up between a fully socialized labour market (much more than Hyman Minsky's public employer of last resort for consumer services advocacy) and no labour market at all; in either scenario, every able-bodied person would be a public-sector employee.

I'll ask if you think collective-control would be adequate here, or if some wage-like material *reciprocity* would be objectively called-for in this context, since not all work roles are (or should be considered as) equivalent, hour-by-hour.

3) The existence of a consumer goods and services market is up in the air; traditional "market-socialist" models allow for such existence.

Leaving *any* aspect of a purportedly socialist society 'up-in-the-air' is actually *anti-socialistic*, since the whole point of socialism is to make things hands-on, and planned.

As long as exchange values are relied on for the purpose of implicitly encouraging economic *exchanges*, as with labor-inputs-for-commodity-rewards, then the driver of production will be *exchange values*, or profitability, rather than human need (which may *not* be that profitable, depending on prevailing 'market socialist' conditions).

As can be seen from the three points above, the raw economics of the Kautsky-Lenin model (leaving aside political factors) range from traditional "market socialism" to Soviet directive planning from 1928-1965.

The bulk of the following thread contains extended, in-depth discussions over this question of what a post-capitalist material economy would, or should, look like:


---

The question is *how soon* can society get off of the 'money' and 'exchanges of exchange-value' thing, so that all that would remain is the terrain of *use*-values -- which themselves, as a fundamental unit, could also vary greatly from person-to-person, depending on the person, their needs, their situation, etc.

As soon as the means of production are under the rule of no one and the work under the control of the worker. Or soon after.

Yup.

(Then please stop advocating for *market*-based exchanges, or exchanges of any kind, as the 'economics' of your professed approach.)

Borders

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/196350-Borders

[willowtooth]

In that excerpt Marx is indicating that ingrained into historical materialism is the ruling class perspective of equating 'the greatest amount of productive power of social labor' with 'the most complete development of man'.

In other words the sacrifice of the here-and-now for labor towards future material developments -- like Calvinism -- is an *ideology* that assumes such civilizational material gains will then reciprocally benefit those who put in the labor to construct them in the first place, the working class.

In terms of 'getting out of feudalism', we're living in the best era for that because machinery has been taking on more and more of the 'heavy lifting' traditionally done by human labor, giving us the worldwide civilization -- though mixed and uneven -- of today.

But in terms of *revolution* this use of machinery needs to be *globalized* and its benefits shared-commonly / 'socialized', no matter if any country is less-developed than the developed world.

What about the rest of the world? Where does the feudal or slave society end and the next society begin? Are indigenous tribes living in the arctic or the jungle in a capitalist society just because the wealthiest part of the world is?

[ckaihatsu]

What about the rest of the world? Where does the feudal or slave society end and the next society begin?

Uneven and combined development (or unequal and combined development) is a Marxist concept[1] to describe the overall dynamics of human history. It was originally used by the Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky around the turn of the 20th century, when he was analyzing the developmental possibilities that existed for the economy and civilization in the Russian empire, and the likely future of the Tsarist regime in Russia.[2] It was the basis of his political strategy of permanent revolution,[3] which implied a rejection of the idea that a human society inevitably developed through a uni-linear sequence of necessary "stages".

a more backward, older or more primitive country would adopt parts of the culture of a more advanced, or more modern society, and a more advanced culture could also adopt or merge with parts of a more primitive culture – with good or bad effects.

Cultural practices, institutions, traditions and ways of life belonging to both very old and very new epochs and phases of human history were all combined, juxtaposed and linked together in a rather unusual way, within one country.

In turn, this meant that one could not really say that different societies all developed simply through the same sort of linear sequence of necessary developmental stages, but rather that they could adopt/utilize the results of developments reached elsewhere, without going through all the previous evolutionary stages which led up to those results. Some countries could thus "skip", "telescope" or "compress" developmental stages which other countries took hundreds of years to go through, or, very rapidly carry through a modernization process that took other countries centuries to achieve.

Different countries could both aid or advance the socio-economic progress of other countries through trade, subsidies and contributing resources, or block and brake other countries as competitors from making progress by preventing the use of capital, technology, trading routes, labour, land or other kinds of resources. In Trotsky's theory of imperialism, the domination of one country by another does not mean that the dominated country is prevented from development altogether, but rather that it develops mainly according to the requirements of the dominating country. For example, an export industry will develop around mining and farm products in the dominated country, but the rest of the economy is not developed, so that the country's economy becomes more unevenly developed than it was before, rather than achieving balanced development. Or, a school system is set up with foreign assistance, but the schools teach only the messages that the dominating country wants to hear.[citation needed]

The main tendencies and trends occurring at the level of world society as a whole, could be also found in each separate country, where they combined with unique local trends – but this was a locally specific “mix”, so that some world trends asserted themselves more strongly or faster, others weaker and slower in each specific country. Thus, a country could be very advanced in some areas of activity, but at the same time comparatively retarded in other areas. One effect was that the response to the same events of world significance could be quite different in different countries, because the local people attached different "weightings" to experiences and therefore drew different conclusions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uneven...ed_development

---


George Novack’s Understanding History

Uneven And Combined Development In History

https://www.marxists.org/archive/nov...story/ch05.htm


---

Are indigenous tribes living in the arctic or the jungle in a capitalist society just because the wealthiest part of the world is?

Yeah, basically -- I'd use the parallel of 'socialism-in-one-country', like that of the former USSR in an overall sea of world capitalism.

(Undoubtedly there'd be commodity items that indigenous people would want, and they'd be brought into the global economy as a result, even if on a very limited basis. There's also the matter of *land*, in that they'd be transformed into de-facto 'owners', like that of the Native Americans, having to then defend and preserve their 'ownership' on a private-property basis because of the larger capitalism.

[sanpal]

To start off, I am aware that "state-capitalist monopoly [for] the whole people" (Lenin), in which "wage labour and money [...] will be found indispensable until something better is discovered" (Kautsky), is not the lower phase of the communist mode of production.

That said, to what extent is constructing or even "achieving" the former possible or not possible in a single "country"? I use quotation marks because today's national borders are, on the whole, not the basis for much more rational economic regionalization (with sufficient geography, geological elements, population, etc.). It would be quite a mouthful if I asked about constructing or "achieving" the Kautsky-Lenin paradigm within a single rational economic region that is neither a large continent nor a small state.

If to argue schematically, in principle, that 100% of the state-capitalist monopoly is the market economic system brought to logical absurdity that is system in which the regulating mechanisms (the competition between producers, economic incentives in the form of profit, etc.) lose a capability to perform the function. Sacred belief of some "communists" that the state-capitalist monopoly will turn in a magic way into communism even if first phase, is their delusion. The dialectic contradictions brought in the state-capitalist monopoly to the highest point will be that "a driving belt" for their permission through the organization of the commune with its communistic mode of reproduction.
Nationalization of the means of production during the period of DotP is a movement of society on the way to the state-capitalist monopoly and it is a necessary stage of the Proletarian revolution. Kommunization of the means of production (voluntary conveyance of the means of production by the Proletarian state to Communards) is a movement of society on the way to communism (its lower phase if at the initial stage the commune covers not the complete society).

[ckaihatsu]

100% of the state-capitalist monopoly is the market economic system brought to logical absurdity

It's unclear here whether you're *for* the state-capitalist monopoly as a transitional phase, or not.

The dialectic contradictions brought in the state-capitalist monopoly to the highest point will be that "a driving belt" for their permission through the organization of the commune with its communistic mode of reproduction.

Would you mind elaborating, to specify what some of these contradictions might be -- ?

Nationalization of the means of production during the period of DotP is a movement of society on the way to the state-capitalist monopoly and it is a necessary stage of the Proletarian revolution.

I tend to agree, but I'll note that the whole world has now well-surpassed any objective or empirical need for 'nation-building' (bourgeois revolutions) as a material prerequisite for realizing a local / region-based path to larger worldwide socialism.

Here's that Trotsky 'permanent revolution' thing:

Trotsky put forward his conception of "permanent revolution" as an explanation of how socialist revolutions could occur in societies that had not achieved advanced capitalism. Part of his theory is the supposed impossibility of "socialism in one country". Trotsky's theory also argues, first, that the bourgeoisie in late-developing capitalist countries are incapable of developing the productive forces in such a manner as to achieve the sort of advanced capitalism which will fully develop an industrial proletariat. Second, that the proletariat can and must, therefore, seize social, economic, and political power, leading an alliance with the peasantry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_revolution

Plenty of the world, here in the 21st century, is thoroughly industrialized and proletarianized, so the implication is that any remaining areas that still *aren't* technologically advanced would have to be helped-up into the world proletarian revolution as the larger whole. Formulaic 'nationalization' for such countries in the process wouldn't be strictly necessary.

Kommunization of the means of production (voluntary conveyance of the means of production by the Proletarian state to Communards) is a movement of society on the way to communism (its lower phase if at the initial stage the commune covers not the complete society).