Senter wrote:During the period of the establishment of socialism in a capitalist country, for some time there would be socialist and capitalist enterprises operating "side-by-side". This stage is called "Democratic Socialism" or "Social Democracy". But throughout this stage the co-ops must be on guard against sliding more and more into capitalist structures as it will be constantly encouraged from all sides by "outside" capitalist influences. Unfortunately, this reversion back into capitalism is underway today in several European social-democratic countries. The economic crisis is creating an opportunity for capitalist-roaders to realize greater success.
Doesn't this highlight the economic dynamics of Capitalism, and the fact that under the capitalist 'political and military rule', such dynamics are directed to create opportunities for the 'Capitalists', and them only.
We must not be naive, if Socialism - a classless society - is our goal; we cannot possibly work with the existing system (no matter how different in our own isolated structures we act), 'hoping' that someday we will be able to ‘reform’ this society from its basis.
We cannot use the Capitalist model of ‘gaining power’ from the ruling class, as the change from Feudalism to Capitalism was a change from one type of class based society to another, i.e. not different in their cores; whilst our aim today, is creation of a society fundamentally different from all those before.
Senter wrote:And it could go either way. That is up to the workers of the co-ops largely.
Indeed it is, who is to deny that. Not through peaceful negotiations, or co-operations of any sort with the ruling class though; but through unity, organisation and consistent struggles based on and contributing to their awareness and experience of what they should be aiming for – To own the fruits of their labour.
The revolution, as 'violent', 'disorderly' and 'unideal' as it may sound; is not what the workers and the revolutionaries 'want', but unfortunately under the Capitalistic realities 'is' the only way which leads to the 'real and lasting solutions'.
Neither Marx, nor his fellow thinkers and followers; liked or wished to advocate violent revolution against the existing Bourgeoisie system, but the circumstances demanded them to do so. For Capitalism 'Profit' is and has always been 'the mighty God', and for its continuity and growth, they do 'anything' it takes; may it be blind competitions, conflict provocations, wars... You name it! We just need to look carefully to see what Capitalism truly is, and stop fantasising about ‘the ways’ to achieve Socialism.
If the workers, revolutionaries and the progressive thinkers today do not organise and ‘plan’ on how things need to be done to achieve Socialism- both, during and after the revolution; the violent uprisings will come about ‘nevertheless’, due to the deepening of the unwanted and difficult circumstances for majority of the people on the planet. And, we see that happening every day, in the different parts of the world. We see how peaceful protests, demonstrations and strikes turn violent by the police and the state militaries. But the tragedies will be created, one after another; for the lack of vision, and not knowing exactly where we should be aiming for. Such thing will make most of the movements futile, and the efforts will go down the drains…
Therefore, our efforts today, should not be on how to ‘reform’ the existing system, under the political and military rule of Capitalism; so it would somehow evolve’ ‘gradually’, because that would be and has proven to be wishing the impossible!
Senter wrote:In Marxist-Leninist theory, communism is the end-game. It is a society and economy that will be stateless and classless. There will be no state apparatus to run the country because none will be needed, and there will be no classes because the "bourgeoisie" (capitalists) will have long ago given up all hope of private enterprises. Again, in Marxian terminology, the state will have "withered away". Communism cannot be imposed, then. People cannot be forced to give up their hope for a private business with private profits so classes cannot be ended by edict. And the state apparatus cannot reasonable be dismantled and eliminated by edict or decision. it all must naturally evolve. The state and class identity must "wither away."
Sure, Marx indeed used this phrase in his writings, however; he was referring to this under ‘Socialism’, i.e. After the political and military overthrow of Capitalism, as all traces of a class based society will be eliminated; so does the need for the existence of state- it will be withered away, so to speak.
It is clear that such need (the need for state) will be gradually built up from ‘within’ a Socialist society, and certainly ‘not’ from within Capitalism. Let us not try to distort the original Marxian writings.
Here I’d like to quote two of Marx’s own writings in the years 1875 and 1852, in which he clearly identifies the need for revolution, and subsequently the dictatorship of Proletariat during the transitory Socialist stage:
“Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat”
(Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875)
“… and now as to myself, no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle and bourgeois economists, the economic economy of the classes. What I did that was new was to prove: (1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production, (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat, (3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society.
Ignorant louts like Heinzen, who deny not merely the class struggle but even the existence of classes, only prove that, despite all their blood-curdling yelps and the humanitarian airs they give themselves, they regard the social conditions under which the bourgeoisie rules as the final product, the non plus ultra [highest point attainable] of history, and that they are only the servants of the bourgeoisie. And the less these louts realize the greatness and transient necessity of the bourgeois regime itself the more disgusting is their servitude….”
(Extract of a Letter from Marx to Weydemeyer, February 5, 1852)