At our meeting with Jarvis Tyner on Saturday a Willamette Reds member asked about the differences between socialism and communism. It may seem like an obscure matter, but the question goes to the heart of why some of us identify as communists and others don't. Below is a quote from Lenin that helps us better understand the importance of the question and points us towards its answer.
I had lunch today with two comrades and the matter of quoting from Lenin and Marx came up. We agreed that nothing is true merely because Lenin or Marx said it, or said it was true, but because experience has validated (or not) the conclusions they drew. This raises an interesting question of how we should approach our theory and what we do. How do we refer back to Marx and Lenin in meaningful ways and connect their thinking and work to the present day?
Here is the clarifying quote from Lenin:
Marx continues: "In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor and with it also the antithesis between mental and physical labor has vanished, after labor has become not only a livelihood but life's prime want, after the productive forces have increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of the co-operative wealth flow abundantly--only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"
The economic basis for the complete withering away of the state is such a high state of development of communism at which the antithesis between mental and physical labor disappears, at which there consequently disappears one of the principle sources of modern social inequality--a source, moreover, which cannot on any account be removed immediately by the mere conversion of the means of production into public property, by the mere expropriation of the capitalists...
The state will be able to wither away completely when society adopts the rule: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", i.e., when people have become so accustomed to observing the fundamental rules of social intercourse and when their labor has become so productive that they will voluntarily work according to their ability. "The narrow horizon of bourgeois right", which compels one to calculate with the heartlessness of a Shylock whether one has not worked half an hour more than somebody else, whether one is not getting less pay than somebody else--this narrow horizon will then be crossed. There will then be no need for society, in distributing products, to regulate the quantity to be received by each; each will take freely "according to his needs"...
Until the "higher" phase of communism arrives, the socialists demand the strictest control by society and by the state over the measure of labor and the measure of consumption; but this control must start with the expropriation of the capitalists, with the establishment of workers' control over the capitalists, and must be exercised not by a state of bureaucrats, but by a state of workers...
But the scientific distinction between socialism and communism is clear. What is usually called socialism was termed by Marx the "first", or lower, phase of communist society. Insofar as the means of production become common property, the word "communism" is also applicable here, providing we do not forget that this is not complete communism...
--From "The State and Revolution", 1917
Posts
4 comments:
This seems to me to be one of the largest misconceptions about socialism and or communism. Most people old enough to have come of age during the cold war era believe that socialism is something along the lines of what you have in Sweden or the France. Communism was mostly regarded more negatively as what they had in the Soviet Union, total abolition of private property, censorship, etc... In fact communism as Marx and Lenin saw it (and the Soviet Union never defined itself as) was a society even anarchists and libertarians would rejoice in - a free and abundant society with no coersive from of government. Although it sounds utopian, think of the powerful productive capacity of this country and right now and then think what we could do if we took that under the democratic control of workers organizations. Think about it.
Rick
I'm not sure what "most people old enough to have come of age during the cold war era" believe or how we would determine that or the validity of their supposed beliefs. And I'm not sure that that matters in any case.
We can call a house cat an elephant but, regardless of the word we use, we will be reassured of its qualities when we discover that a cat and an elephant have differing diets and sizes and the practical differences between having a house cat and an elephant present in our homes. Moreover, we do not change the science of zoology merely by confusing the names of the two very different creatures.
And so it is with this confusion between the western-styled social democracies (where labor aristocracies were bribed or found common cause with imperialism and came to manage the capitalist state and the economy as junior partners before being supplanted by corporate interests), socialism (in which a people's state arbitrates between contending class and political interests and consciously uses coercive means to enforce a popular will through a transitional period) and communism (in which each person produces for the good of all without coercion and finds her satisfaction and identity in these free relations and in the full rights and responsibilities which flow from them).
Of course Marx and Lenin fully appreciated the utopian dimension of communism and wrote a great deal about it. And, of course, the USSR was not utopia and never claimed to be. So what?
In order to create a "free and abundant society with no coersive form of government" we will need to fully transcend commodity production,the division of labor and the separation of thinking and doing as we experience them. Here is the contradiction in anarchist thinking: this transcendence--this new society--necessarily springs from capitalist society and so bears within itself some of the old forms and thinking. A new stage in human history is reached, but history itself has not yet stopped. A state is still required and political and economic differences still exist in some forms. "The democratic control of workers organizations"--now really a mere abstraction--then becomes a real question. Which workers' organizations? What form of democracy? Built into this argument from the ultra-left are the assumptions that workers' organizations cannot be the state and that workers cannot govern democratically through a state--but is this so?
"The powerful productive capacity of this country" guarantees nothing since so much of this productive capacity has developed through imperialism and is environmentally and socially destructive. Even if this were not so, we have to note that building "a free and abundant society with no coersive form of government" requires a radically reworked and rebuilt socially productive center. The transition from what we have now to that reworking and rebuilding is socialism and it requires hard work, sacrifice and coercion for some period of time so that the wealthy and the powerful do not drown society in destruction. A socialist society succeeds to the extent that it can transition into or towards utopia, but to measure the apparent (socialism) by the goal (communism) is illogical and unfair.
Western-style social democracies have shown themselves capable of meeting the immediate needs of most of their citizens for at least short periods of time. In comparison with American workers, most workers in these countries do better most of the time. But these social democracies have served imperialism, or compromised with it, and have often folded in the face of capitalist monopoly opposition and so have not proven their ability to survive over the long haul. For these reasons, I think, the days of classic social democracy are over. Today they are increasingly and correctly a leading force in an international fight against capitalist monopoly power and for the extension of democratic rights. Their futures may better rest in forming anti-monopoly and democratic governments which togther form an explicitly anti-imperialist bloc than in past social democratic models. These forces do best where they are influenced by more revolutionary traditions, as in Latin America.
I actually agree with much of what you said. I read my hasty post and realize I could come off as semi-anarchist or libertarian. Not so. Regarding the semantics of socialsm/communism I believe that to the extent that that the ruling-class has demonized these words is directly proportional to the theat they represent to their interests. My father, a machinist and long time member of the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE) never had a problem with socialism or communism or communists.
Thanks! One of my grandfathers was also a UE member and I tried several times to organize shops through the UE, my favorite union.
Vocabulary is important and we don't pay enough attention to it. We often speak another language than our co-workers and neighbors and we expect them to come around to us. It's one of the major problems with my writing on this blog, in fact. And it doesn't allow for organizing. When was the last time you heard of a group organizing outwards as socialists or communists in the US and outside of the elections or legislation?
We're also too mechanistic in our thinking. We may not have to build or rebuild productive capacity (as the Russians had to, for instance) because a transition to socialism here may not destroy productive capacity--this may have been the intented message of the first post, and it may indeed prove correct. If this happens in a more orderly way, more diverse forms of working class democracy become possible.
We may yet live to see another red scare and redbaiting. In fact, we see attempts at this regularly. The generation that is growing up now, after the old cold war, won't understand or appreciate attempts to demonize the left, but if we don't learn to communicate that may not matter as much.
It is enough for now, I think, to talk about the possibilities of socialism and to encourage people to dream about a utopia (communism) worth working and living for. Perhaps, as Tito told us, these forms of society will come to us disguised with other names.
Rick's comments are quite helpful!
Post a Comment