The Transition into Communism

[RedOctober]

From what ive heard from other marxists adn something from marx say is that  the state whithers away in the transition of socialism to communism. how would this happen. how would the state just sort of whither away. im curious as to how some people think the state will disappear.

[turnoviseous]

http://discussion.newyouth.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=376&perpage=30&pagenumber=3

http://discussion.newyouth.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=346

Next time try selecting "from beginning" in option menu for thread listing, since many threads include many answers already. If you still don´t know what is it about, we can explain again. :D

[RedOctober]

um..."from beginning"? whats thats?

[marx_was_right]

If you go to chapter 5 of Lenin's "The State and revolution" he takes you through the transition step by step and explains very well. You could say he 'hits the nail on the godamn head' :p

[turnoviseous]

Ok if you go to main page of YFIS forums and then you select "social" forum, you will have social threads listed with default option (from last 30 days). you can find that option somewhere on the bottom of the thread list and then turn it to "from beggining" and you will see all threads :D

[richard]

Hello,

The theoretical system of Karl Marx contends that the state is an instrument of class rule.  That it, it exists solely for the purposes of defending the class interests of the capitalist class and ultimately maintaining the rule of this class.

When Marx talked about the state withering away, he was talking about the withering away of classes.  The proletariat will capture control of political power and take control of the means of production.

But the proletariat as proletariat cannot hold economic supremacy, but only political supremacy, and thus,“The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production in the first instance into state property.  But in doing this, it abolishes itself as proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, abolishes also the state as state.  Society, thus far, based upon class antagonisms, has need of the state…When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary…The first act by virtue of which the state really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society – the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society – that is, at the same time, its last independent act as a state.  State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production.  The state is not ‘abolished’, it dies out.  This gives the measure of the value of the phrase ‘a free people’s state’, both as to its justifiable use at times by agitators, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of  the demands of the so-called anarchists for the abolition of the state out of hand”
(Anti-Duhring, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow 1954, p388-9)

“Marx and I, ever since 1845, have held the view the one of the final results of the future proletarian revolution will be the gradual dissolution of that political organisation called the state; an organisation the main object of which has been to secure, by armed force, the economic subjugation of the working majority to the wealthy minority…we have always held…the proletarian class will first have to possess itself of the organised political force of the State and with this aid stamp out the resistance of the Capitalist class and re-organize society”
(Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism, Progress 1974, p173).

What Marx and Engels meant that the state will exist, but not as a state.  It will not be an instrument of class rule but a central administrative structure controlled democratically by all society.

Also, you seem to have 'socialism' and 'communism' mixed up.  Capitalism does not move to socialism and then communism.  Socialism and communism, are synonyms.  To use the term socialism to signify the period of transition makes it appear that there is a social system between capitalism and communism, which of course there is not.

Best Wishes
Richard

[mir]

Comrade Richard,
I have to disagree with your final statement in that there is no social system between capitalism and communism.  The social system between these two shall be the dictatorship of the proletariat.  Some call this system socialist, I can see why.  This system will be in essence a state (i.e. a tool for the suppression of one class by another) for the suppression of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat.  The world cannot go from capitalism to communism.  This is the transition.

[richard]

Dear Mir,

Thanks for your reply.  

If you recall, in Anti- Duhring, Engels made the point that capitalism was the last form of society to have economic classes.  The period of transition would still have economic classes, thus, in the MARXIAN system, the transition would not be a social system in its own right.

Working class dictatorship refers not to a social system but to a form of political rule.  

There is a period of political transition between capitalism and Socialism (which I say is the same as Communism), but the time-scale of this will be very short, as the ECONOMIC prerequsities for the abolition of the wages system already exist (the absence of these was the basis of the period of economic transition, see Principles of Communism).

The period of political transition will have the job of dispossessing the capitalist class.  After they have been dispossessed, we will have a classless society.  

Best Wishes,
Richard

[des-esseintes]

?

"There is a period of political transition between capitalism and Socialism (which I say is the same as Communism), but the time-scale of this will be very short, as the ECONOMIC prerequsities for the abolition of the wages system already exist (the absence of these was the basis of the period of economic transition, see Principles of Communism)."

I don't understand. Are you saying that the economic prerequisites for the abolition of the wages system exist... today? I always thought thaht there would have to be a period of immense economic growth before superabundance kicked in and the state withered away completely ... In my vocabulary socialism is the period of economic growth following the political and economic expropriation of the exploiters; this is where the "withering away of the state" takes place ... maybe I just misunderstood

[mir]

Yes, but during the dictatorship of the proletariat, the proletariat state will whither because of the elimination of class antagonisms.  This dictatorship might not be socialism or communism but neither is it capitalism.  I don't see why the dictatorship of the proletariat is not a social system because you still have classes, if that is not a social than I suppose capitalism isn't either.  Communism is in essence a society without classes, but if the dictatorship has classes, it is obviously not communism.  In your final remarks, you say the period of political transition will have the job of dispossessing the capitalist class, after that, we will have classless society i.e. communism.  The transition is the dictatorship of the proletariat, not communism.  The dictatorship of the proletariat is only a stage of communism but it is not communism proper.  Also, the transition will not be very short as Trotsky points out (although it won't be very long either) in a work which I'm sure somebody can give the title for.  des-esseintes, the capitalist state will be abolished while the poletariat state will whither away, because the need for the state will not exist when there are no classes.

Comrade,
Mir

[richard]

Hi everybody,

Thanks for your replies.

des-esseintes,
 
Yes I am saying that.

If you recall, Engels wrote that the reason we needed a period of economic transition was because the means of production had not been developed in sufficient quantity.  The material conditions for Socialism did not yet exist (in 1847).

"Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?
No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society.

In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity"
(Principles Of Communism).

Marx envisaged a revolution in the late 19th Century.  He did not conceive, and was unable to conceive, that the workers would vote for Labour governments to administer capitalism.  Capitalism has developed much since Marx's day, to the extent that abundance is possible right now.  If we consider all the forms of labour that would be freed up in Socialism - bank clerks, police, armed forces, insurance officials, salespersons, etc, and we consider that food won't be dumped into oceans like it is under capitalism, you will see that we can have Socialism/Communism now.

Mir,

Firstly, you are going to have to make it clear that you are disassociating yourself from Karl Marx's conception of it.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the period in which the proletariat disposesses the capitalist class using its captured political power.

A social system has to have an economic basis.  The dictatorship of the proletariat won't but will be 'in between' capitalism and Socialism.  

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the first stage of communism, as you say.  Marx pointed this out in Critique of the Gotha Programme.  But it is not a social system in its own right.

If you read Marx, the conclusion he came to was:
"This the transition period will not be another social form but only the difficult time of re-organising production and distribution on a socialist basis, settling down to Socialism".
(Socialist Standard, January 1946).

Your final comment is that Trotzky pointed out that the period of transition won't be very short.  I would have imagined that Trotzky had not considered the economic and political developments since Marx wrote his Critique of the Gotha Programme in 1875.  As I wrote earlier in this post, capitalism has developed to the point economically where the abolition of the wages system is possible now.  Capitalism has developed politically to the extent that most of the advanced countries have 'democratic apparatus' of self-administration' which control the armed forces.  As Marx pointed out, in such circumstances, the proletariat could capture control of these institutions and convert them from an instrument of bougeois rule to an instrument of working class emancipation.

"such an organization must be pursued by all the means the proletariat has at its disposal including universal suffrage which will thus be transformed from the instrument of deception that it has been until now into an instrument of emancipation"
(Karl Marx, Programme of the French Workers Party, 1879).

If the proletariat controls the armed forces and the bosses don't, how do you suppose counter-revolutionary elements are to resist?  If they do try and resist, they will be easily smashed.  But of course, Trotzky doesn't think that the workers can take over the capitalist state (he hasn't been able to show how his views on this are compatible with Marx's though).

“It is simply a question of showing that the victorious proletariat must first refashion the old bureaucratic, administratively centralised state power before it can use it for it’s own purposes”
(Letter to Bernstein, Engels, 1st January 1884).

Engels wrote in the 1891 Preface to the Civil War that the state is: “an evil inherited by the proletariat whose worse sides the proletariat…will have at the earliest possible moment to lop off”
(Engels, 1891 Preface, Civil War in France).

Marx made it clear that in England: “the workers may attain their goal by peaceful means” (The First International and After, p324).

He argued that: “In England…the way to show political power lies open to the working class. Insurrection would be madness where peaceful agitation would more swiftly and surely do the work”.(ibid)

Prof Maximillian Rubel quoted Marx in 1878 as saying: “If in England…the working class wins the majority in Parliament…it could then use legal means to abolish the laws and institutions obstructing its development”
(quoted in Marx without Myth, p311).

Rubel has no particular reason to lie, as he rejects parliamentary action, in favour of the Dutch Communist Left’s conception of revolution.

Thanks again for your e-mail, and I hope all is well.

Best Wishes,
For Working Class Dictatorship,
Richard

www.spgb.org.uk

[des-esseintes]

Hmm. While it's perfectly possible to feed and clothe the entire world in a short time, superabundance is another matter. I guess it matters how you define "equality". Economic equality means no privileges. Well so long as certain commodities are so rare to be considered luxuries, there can be no equality. When I talk about Communism, I'm talking Eau de Toilette from the tap and free electronic kit for everyone, and toilets lined with gold. That's what I mean when I say "superabundance kicking in". Inequality breeds envy; Social contradictions become transformed into personal contradictions. Trying to distribute the wealth of the world fairly at the present time would mean an absolute reduction in living standards of the workers in imperialist countries!

[richard]

Hi,

As always. thanks for your reply.

Sure, we do not have superabundance, but we do have abundance.  It has been estimated that if there was no need to make a profit, everybody in the world could have their basic needs provided for 6 times over.  

Of course, we won't have this 'superabundance' immediately, but it will develop within a socialist society itself.  In the first generation of Socialism, we would have problems that a second or third generation wouldn't have.  

The idea of 'equal right' is something Marx said would not exist in Socialism.  He said in the Critique of the Gotha Programme that in the transition from capitalism to Socialism/Communism "equal right here is still in principle -- bourgeois right"

Marx didn't say From each according to ability to each according to what we deem a person should have.  He said that people should take what they need.

We won't have envy in Socialism because Socialism will be a new form of society - it won't be about 'dog-eat-dog' individualism, and each individual will recognise that he is part of a community, that he is a social being.

If everybody were to get the same, what about someone with more needs that someone with little needs?  What about the disabled and elderly?  What about the mentally handicapped?  Surely they need more resources to stay alive?

Marx argued against this whole concept of 'rights' and said:
"Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal."

You say to establish equality now would mean a reduction of the standard of living in Britain for workers.  But you do realise, I hope, that the social product is divided into wages and surplus value, and that at the present point, the division is about 56% wages and 44% surplus value.  

That means 6% of the British population live off of 44% while 94% live off of 56%  

In backward countries, they have means of production themselves, although not to the same degree, and the same kind of situation exists there, the master class own the social wealth.

If the master class has been dispossesed, this 6% of the population won't be able to take up 44% of the resources.

The combined resources of the world are able to provide adequately for the entire population of the world, without any problem.

Even if the standard of living would be lowered (something I don't really concede), do you seriously think a socialist working class would be opposed to the solving of the poverty question on the basis that they won't be able to have their computer upgraded as often because the human resources are needed to produce and distribute food to the poor in Africa?

Finally, Socialism is not about standards of living, but is about class emancipation and the establishment of a free society.

By the way, all nations ae imperialist.  All nations have tendencies to expansionism.  It is just the backward countries economic situation that prevents them from actually acting as imperialist.  

The Leninist theory of Imperialism, disposed of by Herman Gorter and others, is wrong in that it says we should support backward countries over advanced countries in wars.  

If Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, shoudln't we support the imperialists as we would be developing backward countries.

The truth is, the working class has no interest in supporting either advanced or backward country, as both these are run by our masters.  Unlike Lenin, Marxists take the class struggle seriously.

Final Note: My posting looks a bit pompous, so I do hope you will forgive this.  I do not mean to offend nor sound 'intellectual'.  I am, as I would assume you are, a member of the working class who is just trying to convince my fellow slaves of the necessity of abolishing the wages system.

Best Wishes,
Richard

SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN
http://www.spgb.org.uk

[mir]

Comrade Richard,
the dictatorship of the proletariat will have its own economic system, not much more different from the communist system that will liberate the world.  Some things that the dictatorship of the proletariat will have are the state (proletariat-controlled) and classes.  This is not communism as I have stated.  Once the capitalist state is abolished, the proletariat state will whither away, and then finally there is communism.  And it is highly unlikely that the capitalist system will be crushed peacefully.  Do you honestly think the capitalists when they recognize what the communist desire, will give themselves up without any kind of fight?  Who says the army is going bend to the proletarians collective will?  The army is nothing more than a tool for the suppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie!  From all I have read and all I can see, the revolution will not be a peaceful one no matter how much people wish to avoid violence, as I wish as well.  Therefore, the struggle to defeat the capitalists will require years, but throughout that time, the proletariat state will be whithering away because it will be needed less and less, and the defeat of the capitalists will coincide with the end of the dictatorship.  From then on, Communism.

[marx_was_right]

Interesting discussion comrades,

personally I recommend chapter 5 of Lenin's "State and Revolution"

This deals with the transition from capitalism to communism. It can be found here