[The Immortal Goon]

Why would Lenin specifically call for a state apparatus worthy to be called socialist, if he thought building a socialist state was a pipe dream?

Building socialism is good! If nothing else, Lenin wanted to help ease the transition into socialism later when the USSR has helped to aid the revolutions in the East, if nothing else, by altering, "the basic relations between the basic classes of all the countries," including those that :

But what if the situation, which drew Russia into the imperialist world war that involved every more or less influential West European country and made her a witness of the eve of the revolutions maturing or partly already begun in the East, gave rise to circumstances that put Russia and her development in a position which enabled us to achieve precisely that combination of a "peasant war" with the working-class movement suggested in 1856 by no less a Marxist than Marx himself as a possible prospect for Prussia?

What if the complete hopelessness of the situation, by stimulating the efforts of the workers and peasants tenfold, offered us the opportunity to create the fundamental requisites of civilization in a different way from that of the West European countries? Has that altered the general line of development of world history? Has that altered the basic relations between the basic classes of all the countries that are being, or have been, drawn into the general course of world history?

If a definite level of culture is required for the building of socialism (although nobody can say just what that definite "level of culture" is, for it differs in every Western European country), why cannot we began by first achieving the prerequisites for that definite level of culture in a revolutionary way, and then, with the aid of the workers' and peasants' government and Soviet system, proceed to overtake the other nations?

...You say that civilization is necessary for the building of socialism. Very good. But why could we not first create such prerequisites of civilization in our country by the expulsion of the landowners and the Russian capitalists, and then start moving toward socialism?

But at no point does he arbitrarily redefine socialism!

Engels thought so.

No he doesn't! And the out-of-context quotes you provided hardly say otherwise!

From the same work you cited:

Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?

No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.

Again, he specifically denies that an arbitrary measure of state control is socialism:

But of late, since Bismarck went in for State-ownership of industrial establishments, a kind of spurious Socialism has arisen, degenerating, now and again, into something of flunkyism, that without more ado declares all State-ownership, even of the Bismarkian sort, to be socialistic. Certainly, if the taking over by the State of the tobacco industry is socialistic, then Napoleon and Metternich must be numbered among the founders of Socialism.

And what exactly is your argument here?

That socialism is, "an arbitrary measure of state control?"

[ingliz]

something that isn't socialism by Marxist standards

Your standards, not mine.

The policy was a reaction to events, no doubt, but Stalin cobbled together a theoretical foundation. The later Engels managed to muddy Marx's 'base and superstructure' relationship, also reacting to events, with less - A few lines dashed off to his friends.

Ideology is a tool, not holy writ.

arbitrary

You chose the word, not I.

And what exactly is your argument here?

My argument is a worker living in 'socialist' Russia under Stalin, sans international revolution, will notice no difference if he is magically transported to a socialist Russia under Engels.

Above all, it will have to take the control of industry and of all branches of production out of the hands of mutually competing individuals, and instead institute a system in which all these branches of production are operated by society as a whole .

...

Once the first radical attack on private property has been launched, the proletariat will find itself forced to go ever further, to concentrate increasingly in the hands of the state all capital, all agriculture, all transport, all trade. All the foregoing measures are directed to this end; and they will become practicable and feasible, capable of producing their centralizing effects to precisely the degree that the proletariat, through its labor, multiplies the country’s productive forces.

Bismarck

You don't think these sour grapes are more political than ideological, something to do with the Anti-Socialist Law (1878) and a desire not to confuse?

Yes. Of course, providing tactics is not

The Left-Kuomintang government in Wuhan was "revolutionary". It represented the form of organisation of the national-democratic revolution best adapted and most closely corresponding to the specific features of China. To call for its overthrow would have been to disorganise the revolutionary movement, weaken Wuhan, facilitate its downfall, and render assistance to Chang Tso-lin and Chiang Kai-shek.


* J. V. Stalin, Revolution in China and Tasks of the Comintern

[The Immortal Goon]

The policy was a reaction to events, no doubt, but Stalin cobbled together a theoretical foundation.

Completely unnecessary. Lenin already had developed a course based on actual reality. Stalin, exactly as you imply, decided that what he had was the finished result of socialism and had to cobble together a theoretical foundation in order to justify a fiction. It was the tragedy that the farce of Lysenkoism followed. From that moment, the Soviet Union, while possessing many glorious successes and policies until its last day, was doomed. It was forced to cobble together justifications for a theory that did not reflect reality.

The later Engels managed to muddy Marx's 'base and superstructure' relationship, also reacting to events, with less - A few lines dashed off to his friends.

Ideology is a tool, not holy writ.

Is that not my point? Was it not the point of Lenin in denouncing any such foolishness that the Soviet Union had accomplished its goals?

You chose the word [arbitrary], not I.

And then you attacked me for saying that arbitrary state control wasn't socialism

My argument is a worker living in 'socialist' Russia under Stalin, sans international revolution, will notice no difference if he is magically transported to a socialist Russia under Engels.

Certainly Engels is clear that he, like Lenin, would not have recognized it as socialist in form. I suspect the closest we can get to his look at the Soviet Union under Stalin would look something like his view of the Paris Commune:

This shattering of the former state power and its replacement by a new and really democratic state is described in detail in the third section of The Civil War. But it was necessary to dwell briefly here once more on some of its features, because in Germany particularly the superstitious belief in the state has been carried over from philosophy into the general consciousness of the bourgeoisie and even to many workers. According to the philosophical notion, “the state is the realization of the idea” or the Kingdom of God on earth, translated into philosophical terms, the sphere in which eternal truth and justice is or should be realized. And from this follows a superstitious reverence for the state and everything connected with it, which takes roots the more readily as people from their childhood are accustomed to imagine that the affairs and interests common to the whole of society could not be looked after otherwise than as they have been looked after in the past, that is, through the state and its well-paid officials. And people think they have taken quite an extraordinary bold step forward when they have rid themselves of belief in hereditary monarchy and swear by the democratic republic. In reality, however, the state is nothing but a machine for the oppression of one class by another, and indeed in the democratic republic no less than in the monarchy; and at best an evil inherited by the proletariat after its victorious struggle for class supremacy, whose worst sides the proletariat, just like the Commune, cannot avoid having to lop off at the earliest possible moment, until such time as a new generation, reared in new and free social conditions, will be able to throw the entire lumber of the state on the scrap-heap.

He attacks directly the idea that a Proletarian state should be, "cobbled together [by] a theoretical foundation."

You don't think these sour grapes are more political than ideological, something to do with the Anti-Socialist Law (1878) and a desire not to confuse?

No, I simply don't think Engels thought that Bismarck or Napoleon were socialists in any Marxist sense of the word. This is, apparently, the same confusion you ran into in implying that the German Junkers were somehow revolutionary socialists.

But all this notwithstanding, we would, without undue desire to carp or cavil, point out that to call such demands ‘Socialistic’ is in the highest degree misleading. Socialism properly implies above all things the co-operative control by the workers of the machinery of production; without this co-operative control the public ownership by the State is not Socialism – it is only State capitalism. The demands of the middle-class reformers, from the Railway Reform League down, are simply plans to facilitate the business transactions of the capitalist class. State Telephones – to cheapen messages in the interest of the middle class who are the principal users of the telephone system; State Railways – to cheapen carriage of goods in the interest of the middle-class trader; State-construction of piers, docks, etc. – in the interest of the middle-class merchant; in fact every scheme now advanced in which the help of the State is invoked is a scheme to lighten the burden of the capitalist – trader, manufacturer, or farmer. Were they all in working order to-morrow the change would not necessarily benefit the working class; we would still have in our state industries, as in the Post Office to-day, the same unfair classification of salaries, and the same despotic rule of an irresponsible head. Those who worked most and hardest would still get the least remuneration, and the rank and file would still be deprived of all voice in the ordering of their industry, just the same as in all private enterprises.

Therefore, we repeat, state ownership and control is not necessarily Socialism – if it were, then the Army, the Navy, the Police, the Judges, the Gaolers, the Informers, and the Hangmen, all would all be Socialist functionaries, as they are State officials – but the ownership by the State of all the land and materials for labour, combined with the co-operative control by the workers of such land and materials, would be Socialism.

Schemes of state and municipal ownership, if unaccompanied by this co-operative principle, are but schemes for the perfectioning of the mechanism of capitalist government-schemes to make the capitalist regime respectable and efficient for the purposes of the capitalist; in the second place they represent the class-conscious instinct of the business man who feels that capitalist should not prey upon capitalist, while all may unite to prey upon the workers. The chief immediate sufferers from private ownership of railways, canals, and telephones are the middle class shop-keeping element, and their resentment at the tariffs imposed is but the capitalist political expression of the old adage that “dog should not eat dog.”

[ingliz]

And then you attacked me for saying that arbitrary state control wasn't socialism

I don't believe Soviet state capitalism/socialism was arbitrary, in either sense of the word.

1.
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

2.
(of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.

It is the Communist Party alone that represents the fundamental interest of the people. Thus, it is the party alone that has the right and the duty to guide and govern.

I would have quoted Professor Guo in full but "universal truth" is too much even for me.

the same confusion you ran into in implying that the German Junkers were somehow revolutionary socialists

I have never said that the German Junkers were somehow revolutionary socialists.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible

reality

Reality tells us that state capitalism would be a step forward. If in a small space of time we could achieve state capitalism in Russia, that would be a victory.

How is it that they cannot see that it is the petty proprietor, small capital, that is our enemy?

Commune

Lenin argues that a society of small-scale commodity producers inevitably results in capitalism through the attrition generated by competition among them.

[S]eparate producers, each producing commodities on his own for the market, enter into competition with one another: each strives to sell at the highest price and to buy at the lowest, a necessary result of which is that the strong become stronger and the weak go under, a minority are enriched and the masses are ruined.

a new and really democratic state

Kumbaya crap!

A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is

Reality:

Freedom of political organisation... means facilitating the enemy’s task, means helping the class enemy.

[The workers] have made a fetish of democratic principles. They have placed the workers' right to elect representatives above the Party. As if the Party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship temporarily clashed with the passing moods of the workers' democracy!... The Party is obliged to maintain its dictatorship . . . regardless of temporary vacillations even in the working class. . . The dictatorship does not base itself at every given moment on the formal principle of a workers' democracy.

Democracy is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

the Soviet Union had accomplished its goals?

Obviously, the Soviet Union had not accomplished its goals but this does not mean it achieved nothing, that the Soviet Union was not socialist. For the most part, it was a society just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. As Stalin said, "the development of the relations of production lags, and will lag, behind the development of the productive forces".

in the first phase of communist society (usually called socialism) "bourgeois law" is not abolished in its entirety, but only in part, only in proportion to the economic revolution so far attained, i.e., only in respect of the means of production. "Bourgeois law" recognizes them as the private property of individuals. Socialism converts them into common property. To that extent--and to that extent alone--"bourgeois law" disappears.

You seem to be wilfully misconstruing what Stalin said, in context, victory over the capitalist elements in our economy, in the strict sense (linked to the private ownership of the means of production). Most likely because you dismiss Lenin's uninterrupted revolution and embrace that theoretical absurdity* permanent revolution.

* Lenin, Subservience to the Bourgeoisie in the Guise of “Economic Analysis”

Lenin's uninterrupted revolution

At some point, the bourgeois-democratic revolution becomes socialist revolution.

the concepts, go through an uninterrupted change of coming into being and passing away.

"cobbled together [by] a theoretical foundation."

Ideology is the servant of politics.

[The Immortal Goon]

I don't believe Soviet state capitalism/socialism was arbitrary, in either sense of the word.

Nor do I. Though one may wonder why you think that socialism can be simply, "cobbled together," or why you had issue with me denouncing an arbitrary socialism.

I have never said that the German Junkers were somehow revolutionary socialists.

I mentioned your confusion, not your statement. It is linked should anybody choose to follow it.

reality

I have no idea what you think those quotes have to do with anything in relation to the single word pulled from something above. I need, at least, more context.

Commune

Lenin argues that a society of small-scale commodity producers inevitably results in capitalism through the attrition generated by competition among them.

Okay. Without the context of something beyond a two-syllable word, it's hard to know what you're on about.

Kumbaya crap...Democracy is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

I suppose if you strip everything of any context, that can be said of anything. The point, as you know in deliberately trying to steer the conversation away from it, is that state ownership does not always equal socialism.

Obviously, the Soviet Union had not accomplished its goals but this does not mean it achieved nothing, that the Soviet Union was not socialist. For the most part, it was a society just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. As Stalin said, "the development of the relations of production lags, and will lag, behind the development of the productive forces".

Obviously it encountered some goals. One of the things Lenin wrote about socialism specifically:

The state withers away insofar as there are no longer any capitalists, any classes, and, consequently, no class can be suppressed.

But the state has not yet completely withered away, since the still remains the safeguarding of "bourgeois law", which sanctifies actual inequality. For the state to wither away completely, complete communism is necessary

So you would argue then that the state had done a lot of withering away under Stalin?

You seem to be wilfully misconstruing what Stalin said, in context, victory over the capitalist elements in our economy, in the strict sense (linked to the private ownership of the means of production).

Oh, all you need is "victory over the capitalist elements in our economy?" Great. I suppose the Democratic Republic of the Congo created socialism? As did the Paris Commune? Really, so did the Directory under Thermidor when attempting to reestablish feudalism.

Stalin didn't use any Marxism in making his declaration that Socialism in one Country was not only possible, but already won.

[ingliz]

Though one may wonder why you think that socialism can be simply, "cobbled together,"

Socialism cannot be cobbled together but the self serving, pseudo-scientific, political narrative you use, to sell it to the masses, can.

or why you had issue with me denouncing an arbitrary socialism.

I have an issue when you confuse Soviet socialism with an arbitrary not socialism.

I mentioned your confusion, not your statement.

I am not confused. Soviet state socialism differed essentially from the state capitalism in countries that had bourgeois governments in that the state was represented not by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat.

I have no idea what you think those quotes have to do with anything in relation to the single word pulled from something above. I need, at least, more context.

You denounced state capitalism/socialism - "Lenin already had developed a course based on actual reality" - In reality, that course was state capitalism/socialism.

Okay. Without the context of something beyond a two-syllable word, it's hard to know what you're on about.

You denounce state capitalism, and by association state socialism, because you want to be rid of the state, bureaucracy, and all bad things - You give the factories to the workers, the fields to the peasants - The workers and peasants are now small capitalists - Small capitalists become big capitalists - A minority are enriched and the masses are ruined.

state ownership does not always equal socialism.

Sometimes, it does.

But the state has not yet completely withered away, since the still remains the safeguarding of "bourgeois law", which sanctifies actual inequality. For the state to wither away completely, complete communism is necessary

Correct, but a socialist state is not a communist society. The 'final' victory of socialism is not possible in one country.

Oh, all you need is "victory over the capitalist elements in our economy?"

If you have the base and superstructure, yes.

In acquiring new productive forces, men change their mode of production; and in changing their mode of production, in changing their way of earning a living, they change all their social relations.

But it will not be complete communism.

the development of the relations of production lags, and will lag, behind the development of the productive forces

[The Immortal Goon]

Socialism cannot be cobbled together but the self serving, pseudo-scientific, political narrative you use, to sell it to the masses, can.

The policy was a reaction to events, no doubt, but Stalin cobbled together a theoretical foundation.

I have an issue when you confuse Soviet socialism with an arbitrary not socialism.

According to Marx, Engels, and Lenin, there was no Soviet socialism.

I am not confused. Soviet state socialism differed essentially from the state capitalism in countries that had bourgeois governments in that the state was represented not by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat.

Then why did you say that:

In other words, the intervening variable between state capitalism and socialism is a political, not an economic, one.

And use a piece in which Lenin wrote:

But socialism is now gazing at us from all the windows of modern capitalism; socialism is outlined directly, practically, by every important measure that constitutes a forward step on the basis of this modern capitalism.

What is universal labour conscription?

It is a step forward on the basis of modern monopoly capitalism, a step towards the regulation of economic life as a whole, in accordance with a certain general plan, a step towards the economy of national labour and towards the prevention of its senseless wastage by capitalism.

In Germany it is the Junkers (landowners) and capitalists who are introducing universal labour conscription, and therefore it inevitably becomes war-time penal servitude for the workers.

To prove that Stalin could have socialism in one country? Further, you went on to denounce Connolly's explanation of the difference between a capitalist government and socialism as, "Kumbaya crap," and you also said that Engels explaining that Napoleon and Bismarck weren't socialist just because they had government participation in the market as, "sour grapes are more political than ideological."

It seems to me that you're changing your argument again.

You denounced state capitalism

I said nothing about, "state capitalism." You're making that up.

You denounce state capitalism, and by association state socialism

...because you want to be rid of the state, bureaucracy, and all bad things - You give the factories to the workers, the fields to the peasants - The workers and peasants are now small capitalists - Small capitalists become big capitalists - A minority are enriched and the masses are ruined.

I never made any kind of argument like that. But hit that strawman harder!

Correct, but a socialist state is not a communist society. The 'final' victory of socialism is not possible in one country.

How convenient you forgot to answer the portion that was asked about where Lenin concluded that under socialism there would be a, "withering of the state."

...If you have the base and superstructure, yes.

Of course the superstructure is specifically tied to the international in capitalism:

Civil society embraces the whole material intercourse of individuals within a definite stage of the development of productive forces. It embraces the whole commercial and industrial life of a given stage and, insofar, transcends the State and the nation, though, on the other hand again, it must assert itself in its foreign relations as nationality, and inwardly must organise itself as State. The word “civil society” [bürgerliche Gesellschaft] emerged in the eighteenth century, when property relationships had already extricated themselves from the ancient and medieval communal society. Civil society as such only develops with the bourgeoisie; the social organisation evolving directly out of production and commerce, which in all ages forms the basis of the State and of the rest of the idealistic superstructure, has, however, always been designated by the same name.

But it will not be complete communism.

You must be so proud of yourself for finding another strawman to beat up on!

[ingliz]

You forget, I don't give a shit if Stalin cobbled together "a self serving, pseudo-scientific, political narrative" to sell socialism to the masses: Socialism is the goal.

Further, you went on to denounce Connolly's explanation of the difference between a capitalist government and socialism as, "Kumbaya crap,"

I think you will find that is Engels.

you also said that Engels explaining that Napoleon and Bismarck weren't socialist just because they had government participation in the market as, "sour grapes are more political than ideological."

Well, in 1848, he was a cheerleader, The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state; in 1880, you say he wasn't - The 'Law of Exclusion' was passed in 1878.

It seems to me that you're changing your argument again.

No.

I said nothing about, "state capitalism." You're making that up.

This is ahistorical. Engels specifically said that there was no such thing as "state socialism:"

In a workers' state, once the productive forces are sufficiently developed, the intervening variable between state capitalism and [state] socialism is a political, not an economic, one.

In other words, the intervening variable between state capitalism and socialism is a political, not an economic, one

Stalin intervened.

I never made any kind of argument like that.

Connolly's co-operatives?

Of course the superstructure is specifically tied to the international in capitalism.

By 1938, a 'chinese wall' existed between the internal socialist market and capitalism.

[The Immortal Goon]

You forget, I don't give a shit if Stalin cobbled together "a self serving, pseudo-scientific, political narrative" to sell socialism to the masses: Socialism is the goal.

But socialism isn't, "a self serving, pseudo-scientific, political narrative." It's a result of a historical and material process.

I think you will find that is Engels [that disagrees with Connolly's assertion that socialism isn't simply government ownership].

But all this notwithstanding, we would, without undue desire to carp or cavil, point out that to call such demands ‘Socialistic’ is in the highest degree misleading. Socialism properly implies above all things the co-operative control by the workers of the machinery of production; without this co-operative control the public ownership by the State is not Socialism – it is only State capitalism. The demands of the middle-class reformers, from the Railway Reform League down, are simply plans to facilitate the business transactions of the capitalist class. State Telephones – to cheapen messages in the interest of the middle class who are the principal users of the telephone system; State Railways – to cheapen carriage of goods in the interest of the middle-class trader; State-construction of piers, docks, etc. – in the interest of the middle-class merchant; in fact every scheme now advanced in which the help of the State is invoked is a scheme to lighten the burden of the capitalist – trader, manufacturer, or farmer. Were they all in working order to-morrow the change would not necessarily benefit the working class; we would still have in our state industries, as in the Post Office to-day, the same unfair classification of salaries, and the same despotic rule of an irresponsible head. Those who worked most and hardest would still get the least remuneration, and the rank and file would still be deprived of all voice in the ordering of their industry, just the same as in all private enterprises.

Therefore, we repeat, state ownership and control is not necessarily Socialism – if it were, then the Army, the Navy, the Police, the Judges, the Gaolers, the Informers, and the Hangmen, all would all be Socialist functionaries, as they are State officials – but the ownership by the State of all the land and materials for labour, combined with the co-operative control by the workers of such land and materials, would be Socialism.

Schemes of state and municipal ownership, if unaccompanied by this co-operative principle, are but schemes for the perfectioning of the mechanism of capitalist government-schemes to make the capitalist regime respectable and efficient for the purposes of the capitalist; in the second place they represent the class-conscious instinct of the business man who feels that capitalist should not prey upon capitalist, while all may unite to prey upon the workers. The chief immediate sufferers from private ownership of railways, canals, and telephones are the middle class shop-keeping element, and their resentment at the tariffs imposed is but the capitalist political expression of the old adage that “dog should not eat dog.”

But it was necessary to dwell briefly here once more on some of its features, because in Germany particularly the superstitious belief in the state has been carried over from philosophy into the general consciousness of the bourgeoisie and even to many workers. According to the philosophical notion, “the state is the realization of the idea” or the Kingdom of God on earth, translated into philosophical terms, the sphere in which eternal truth and justice is or should be realized. And from this follows a superstitious reverence for the state and everything connected with it, which takes roots the more readily as people from their childhood are accustomed to imagine that the affairs and interests common to the whole of society could not be looked after otherwise than as they have been looked after in the past, that is, through the state and its well-paid officials.

But of late, since Bismarck went in for State-ownership of industrial establishments, a kind of spurious Socialism has arisen, degenerating, now and again, into something of flunkyism, that without more ado declares all State-ownership, even of the Bismarkian sort, to be socialistic. Certainly, if the taking over by the State of the tobacco industry is socialistic, then Napoleon and Metternich must be numbered among the founders of Socialism.

Nope, seems to check out!

Well, in 1848, he was a cheerleader, The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state; in 1880, you say he wasn't - The 'Law of Exclusion' was passed in 1878.

A cheerleader of what?

You say I think he was no longer, "a cheerleader," though I think it's pretty clear he's explaining that socialism is in no way, "a self serving, pseudo-scientific, political narrative." You can't just have the government sop up industry and then declare socialism. Socialism is a dialectic process.

Just as Lenin said of the Junkers, who create their own antithesis; and the Soviets who come in line with their own destiny but explicitly, "will still not be socialism":

It is a step forward on the basis of modern monopoly capitalism, a step towards the regulation of economic life as a whole, in accordance with a certain general plan, a step towards the economy of national labour and towards the prevention of its senseless wastage by capitalism.

In Germany it is the Junkers (landowners) and capitalists who are introducing universal labour conscription, and therefore it inevitably becomes war-time penal servitude for the workers.

But take the same institution and think over its significance in a revolutionary-democratic state. Universal labour conscription, introduced, regulated and directed by the Soviets of Workers’, Soldiers’ and Peasants’ Deputies, will still not be socialism, but it will no longer be capitalism. It will be a tremendous step towards socialism, a step from which, if complete democracy is preserved, there can no longer be any retreat back to capitalism, without unparalleled violence being committed against the masses.

In a workers' state, once the productive forces are sufficiently developed, the intervening variable between state capitalism and [state] socialism is a political, not an economic, one...[because] Stalin intervened.

Yes, because for you socialism is "a self serving, pseudo-scientific, political narrative"

For Marxists it's something different:

Instead of scholastically invented, “concocted” definitions and fruitless disputes over words (What is socialism? What is communism?), Marx gives an analysis of what might be called the stages of the economic maturity of communism.

Connolly's co-operatives?

...were not in anything that I wrote. He was refuting the libertarian idea, as Engels did, that state ownership was socialism.

By 1938, a 'chinese wall' existed between the internal socialist market and capitalism.

Part of the, "self serving, pseudo-scientific, political narrative" that denied dialectics and material reality. The results of it are clear enough:





You can tell everyone that a round peg goes into a square hole and keep that going for a while. But eventually reality will win. It always does.

[ingliz]

But socialism isn't, "a self serving, pseudo-scientific, political narrative."

I have never said it was.

Every step of real movement is more important than a dozen programmes.

I think you will find that is Engels...

I think you will find that it was Engels who said, "a new and really democratic state", to which I replied,"Kumbaya crap!". It was Engels who said, "A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is."

A cheerleader of what?

State capitalism.

The Immortal Goon

[T]he following discovery made by the “Left Communists” will provoke nothing short of Homeric laughter. According to them, under the “Bolshevik deviation to the right” the Soviet Republic is threatened with “evolution towards state capitalism”. They have really frightened us this time! And with what gusto these “Left Communists” repeat this threatening revelation in their theses and articles. . . .

It has not occurred to them that state capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months’ time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in our country.

I can imagine with what noble indignation a “Left Communist” will recoil from these words, and what “devastating criticism” he will make to the workers against the “Bolshevik deviation to the right”. What! Transition to state capitalism in the Soviet Socialist Republic would be a step forward?. . . Isn’t this the betrayal of socialism?

Here we come to the root of the economic mistake of the “Left Communists”. And that is why we must deal with this point in greater detail.

Firstly, the “Left Communists” do not understand what kind of transition it is from capitalism to socialism that gives us the right and the grounds to call our country the Socialist Republic of Soviets.

Secondly, they reveal their petty-bourgeois mentality precisely by not recognising the petty-bourgeois element as the principal enemy of socialism in our country.

Thirdly, in making a bugbear of “state capitalism”, they betray their failure to understand that the Soviet state differs from the bourgeois state economically.

[The Immortal Goon]

I have never said it was.

No, but you said that, "Stalin cobbled together "a self serving, pseudo-scientific, political narrative" to sell socialism to the masses."

To which I reply that, "You can tell everyone that a round peg goes into a square hole and keep that going for a while. But eventually reality will win. It always does."

And history has proven this in this instance.

I think you will find that it was [Connolly] who said, "a new and really democratic state", to which I replied,"Kumbaya crap!"

It is impossible to dispute (certainly in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism) that Lenin saw socialism as the progression of the tendency towards the centralisation of capital. Thus socialism was conceived as democratic state control of the centralised means of production.

This aside, you're attacking strawmen again instead of answering the more important question here as to whether simple government control is socialism.

I provided two works from Engels, one from Lenin, and one from Connolly asserting that government ownership alone doesn't create socialism. You're trying to debate whether, "democracy," is a wimpy word. Which has nothing to do with anything.

[Engels was a cheerleader of] State capitalism.

Only so far as the dialectic allowed. I went through this with the Junkers example a few times.

Lenin, “Left-Wing” Childishness

That all sounds damning, again, until you read the context:

The people must be told the bitter truth simply, clearly and in a straightforward manner: it is possible, and even probable, that the war party will again get the upper hand in Germany (that is, an offensive against us will commence at once), and that Germany together with Japan, by official agreement or by tacit understanding, will partition and strangle us. Our tactics, if we do not want to listen to the ranters, must be to wait, procrastinate, avoid battle and retreat. If we shake off the ranters and “brace ourselves” by creating genuinely iron, genuinely proletarian, genuinely communist discipline, we shall have a good chance of gaining many months. And then by retreating even, if the worst comes to the worst, to the Urals, we shall make it easier for our ally (the international proletariat) to come to our aid, to “catch up” (to use the language of sport) the distance between the beginning of revolutionary outbreaks and revolution.

These, and these alone, are the tactics which can in fact strengthen the connection between one temporarily isolated section of international socialism and the other sections. But to tell the truth, all that your arguments lead to, dear “Left Communists”, is the “strengthening of the organic connection” between one high-sounding phrase and another. A bad sort of “organic connection”, this!

I shall enlighten you, my amiable friends, as to why such disaster overtook you. It is because you devote more effort to learning by heart and committing to memory revolutionary slogans than to thinking them out. This leads you to write “the defence of the socialist fatherland” in quotation marks, which are probably meant to signify your attempts at being ironical, but which really prove that you are muddleheads. You are accustomed to regard “defencism” as something base and despicable; you have learned this and committed it to memory. You have learned this by heart so thoroughly that some of you have begun talking nonsense to the effect that defence of the fatherland in an imperialist epoch is impermissible (as a matter of fact, it is impermissible only in an imperialist, reactionary war, waged by the bourgeoisie). But you have not thought out why and when “defencism” is abominable.

To recognise defence of the fatherland means recognising the legitimacy and justice of war. Legitimacy and justice from what point of view? Only from the point of view of the socialist, proletariat and its struggle for its emancipation. We do not recognise any other point of view. If war is waged by the exploiting class with the object of strengthening its rule as a class, such a war is a criminal war, and “defencism” in such a war is a base betrayal of socialism. If war is waged by the proletariat after it has conquered the bourgeoisie in its own country, and is waged with the object of strengthening and developing socialism, such a war is legitimate and “holy”.

Lenin presupposes international socialism, not SIOC. He actually criticizes the very nature of Stalin's later foreign policy.

[ingliz]

socialism was conceived as democratic state control of the centralised means of production.

You choose to place the emphasis on democracy; I, the state. As Marx said, for the revolutionary process, democracy is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

[The workers] have made a fetish of democratic principles. They have placed the workers' right to elect representatives above the Party. As if the Party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship temporarily clashed with the passing moods of the workers' democracy!... The Party is obliged to maintain its dictatorship . . . regardless of temporary vacillations even in the working class. . . The dictatorship does not base itself at every given moment on the formal principle of a workers' democracy.

government ownership alone doesn't create socialism.

Correct.

What matters is who is in control, and in whose interest they are acting.

You're trying to debate whether, "democracy," is a wimpy word. Which has nothing to do with anything.

Engels thought the concept important enough, and so do you, it seems.

the very nature of Stalin's later foreign policy.

Are you sure?

[F]or representatives of the socialist proletariat to take part in a revolutionary government with the petty bourgeoisie is fully permissible in principle, and, in certain conditions even obligatory.

With regard to the more backward states and nations, in which feudal or patriarchal and patriarchal-peasant relations predominate, it is particularly important to bear in mind: first, that all Communist parties must assist the bourgeois-democratic liberation movement in these countries.

[Connolly]

"a new and really democratic state"

Introduction by Frederick Engels On the 20th Anniversary of the Paris Commune [PostScript]

[The Immortal Goon]

You choose to place the emphasis on democracy; I, the state...Engels thought the concept important enough, and so do you, it seems..."a new and really democratic state"

I didn't put emphasis on anything

I had a quote about how government ownership. You said it was, "Kumbaya crap!"

When pressed, you said you were talking about the single word in Connolly's thing about government ownership: "democracy."

Which was weird, as that wasn't even what the piece was about, and democracy was something you had mentioned as essential yourself.

But, you know, you got to hit a strawman again instead of actually addressing the actual issue of state ownership and the nature of socialism. So you succeeded in that at least!

Correct.

What matters is who is in control, and in whose interest they are acting.

So you've changed your stance since last page?

[quote=Ingliz"]Engels thought [socialism is an arbitrary measure of state control][/quote]

Or when you said that Connolly's explanation of the difference between capitalist government was, "crap," because you (wrongly) thought Engels didn't find such a description?

Are you sure [that the very nature of Stalin's later foreign policy was refuted by Lenin]

Though hardly definitive as he wasn't a fortune teller, I will say that Lenin seems to oppose the Popular Front. But there's not enough to say and the conditions are different, so there's not much reason to even begin to get into it.

[ingliz]

I didn't put emphasis on anything

Above the Connolly quote, you also had a quote from the postscript to Engels's introduction to "On the 20th Anniversary of the Paris Commune". The first line of which is:

This shattering of the former state power and its replacement by a new and really democratic state is described in detail in the third section of The Civil War.

Engels thought the concept important enough, and so do you, it seems.

I had a quote about how government ownership. You said it was, "Kumbaya crap!"

Above the Connolly quote:

"This shattering of the former state power and its replacement by a new and really democratic state"

Which is "Kumbaya crap", unless, of course, you believe socialism comes in a neat ready made packet to be opened the day after the guns stop firing.

arbitrary

You chose the word, not I.

I don't believe Soviet state capitalism/socialism was arbitrary, in either sense of the word.

So you've changed your stance since last page?

No

Connolly's explanation of the difference between capitalist government was, "crap,"

Connolly's explanation of the difference was crap. Co-operatives are small producer capitalism, destined to become the 'big' capitalism, under which "a minority are enriched and the masses are ruined".

* Lenin, On the So-Called Market Question

But there's not enough to say and the conditions are different, so there's not much reason to even begin to get into it

Just a random pop at Stalin, then?

[The Immortal Goon]

Engels thought the concept [of democracy] important enough, and so do you, it seems.

I suppose, but that's not even what either of the quotes were about. We were getting into the nature of state ownership and you're doing your best to divert attention away from it.

Which is "Kumbaya crap", unless, of course, you believe socialism comes in a neat ready made packet to be opened the day after the guns stop firing.

I don't think, in context, Connolly thought any such thing. But this is, again, a big diversion to get away from talking about state ownership and the nature of socialism in one country.

You chose the word, not I.

And you embraced it.

Connolly's explanation of the difference was crap. Co-operatives are small producer capitalism, destined to become the 'big' capitalism, under which "a minority are enriched and the masses are ruined".

In that work he doesn't even bring up co-operatives. You're ignoring the actual message by trying to find little nit-picky things to divert attention.

Just a random pop at Stalin, then?

It happens

[ingliz]

And you embraced it.

No, it was always your argument that Soviet state monopoly was 'arbitrary', and then you changed your mind.

arbitrary
ˈ
adjective

1. based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

2. (of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.

I don't believe Soviet state capitalism/socialism was arbitrary, in either sense of the word.

Nor do I

In that work he doesn't even bring up co-operatives.

Yes, he does.

Socialism properly implies above all things the co-operative control by the workers of the machinery of production.

A question.

If we agree, for the sake of argument, that state socialism and co-operatives are not socialist. What is?

[The Immortal Goon]

No, it was always your argument that Soviet state monopoly was 'arbitrary', and then you changed your mind.

False. Calling the Soviet Union "socialist," was arbitrary. Something you yourself agreed with:

Capitalism is inherently international, the result largely, of the Columbian Exchange and other events. To say that it no longer is, and that Marx, Engels, and Lenin were incorrect, and now socialism is an arbitrary measure of state control, is to fall into what Engels warned in the absurdity of declaring Napoleon a founder of socialism.

About the "arbitrary" part, you responded:

Engels thought so.

And you seem to agree that you can just arbitrarily declare socialism so long as you, "cobbled together a theoretical foundation."

Yes, he does [bring up co-operatives].

Yes, he uses the word "co-operative" but he's not using it in any political sense that would imply a different kind of socialism or something.

If we agree, for the sake of argument, that state socialism and co-operatives are not socialist. What is?

It is, in short, the result that comes from the contradictions of capitalism. It must be international because, as Marx, Engels, and Lenin always said, capitalist production is international.

Solution of the contradictions. The proletariat seizes the public power, and by means of this transforms the socialized means of production, slipping from the hands of the bourgeoisie, into public property. By this act, the proletariat frees the means of production from the character of capital they have thus far borne, and gives their socialized character complete freedom to work itself out. Socialized production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible. The development of production makes the existence of different classes of society thenceforth an anachronism. In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the State dies out. Man, at last the master of his own form of social organization, becomes at the same time the lord over Nature, his own master — free.

To accomplish this act of universal emancipation is the historical mission of the modern proletariat. To thoroughly comprehend the historical conditions and this the very nature of this act, to impart to the now oppressed proletarian class a full knowledge of the conditions and of the meaning of the momentous act it is called upon to accomplish, this is the task of the theoretical expression of the proletarian movement, scientific Socialism.

Until such a time, there can be workers' states, and there can be socialist systems, but these states are not socialism. It's an important designation.

And there may be an attempt to make this seem like a matter of pedantry, but there was a reason Engels and Lenin were so firm on the issue.

In the first, it's a matter of representing and analyzing reality correctly. Not being able to do so, breaks down any kind of dialectic or material basis and throws it all out the window.

In the second, it leads to all kinds of wacky places. For instance, the Connolly-DeLeon controversy had, in part, DeLeon advocating that everyone should act as if we live in a socialist society before a socialist society had even been attempted. This included speculation of what it would be like, for instance the "glass of water theory," that sex should be given away as one would give a guest a glass of water.

Connolly, correctly, thought this was insane. Lenin, when in charge of an ideologically socialist country, didn't like some of the social systems that were developing, but admitted that he was, "an old man," and it wasn't really his place to intervene in these spheres (hence marriages of three and four people; legalized homosexuality, etc). This is basic Marxism in that the material conditions will dictate the social.

Stalin, however, declared that there was a socialist system. In this way, he was like DeLeon declaring that there was a correct social code that had to be followed that was innately socialist. Stalin chose one more in keeping with his place as a Georgian studying to be a cleric and declared that socialism meant certain social conditions without the former having been formed.

This extended to art and everything else, where parts of life—instead of being dictated by material reality—was dictated by abstract ideology.

Finally, it led to all kinds of policies that even Stalin had to later admit were incorrect so far as keeping a "socialist" system in a national sphere. So an alliance with bourgeois countries against socialist revolution became viable. Something that would have been unthinkable for Lenin. The inevitable result was a the kind of "flunkyism" that Engels mocked, a "socialism" where, "Napoleon and Metternich" were its founders that ran itself into the ground and collapsed.

And, again, the underlining current is that it fundamentally causes a break with materialism in order to work since one is defending a definition and interpretation of reality instead of physical reality.

Marx hinted at this danger while examining French political history:

Thus they become the eclectics or adepts of the existing socialist systems, of doctrinaire Socialism, which was the theoretical expression of the proletariat only as long as it had not yet developed further into a free historical movement of its own.

While this utopian, doctrinaire Socialism, which subordinates the total movement to one of its stages, which puts in place of common social production the brainwork of individual pedants and, above all, in fantasy does away with the revolutionary struggle of the classes and its requirements by small conjurers' tricks or great sentimentality, while this doctrinaire Socialism, which at bottom only idealizes present society, takes a picture of it without shadows, and wants to achieve its ideal athwart the realities of present society; while the proletariat surrenders this Socialism to the petty bourgeoisie; while the struggle of the different socialist leaders among themselves sets forth each of the so-called systems as a pretentious adherence to one of the transit points of the social revolution as against another — the proletariat rallies more and more around revolutionary Socialism, around Communism, for which the bourgeoisie has itself invented the name of Blanqui. This Socialism is the declaration of the permanence of the revolution, the class dictatorship of the proletariat as the necessary transit point to the abolition of class distinctions generally, to the abolition of all the relations of production on which they rest, to the abolition of all the social relations that correspond to these relations of production, to the revolutionizing of all the ideas that result from these social relations.

Connolly perhaps goes into more detail that may be applied specifically to the Soviet Union:

As one of the earliest organisers of that body, I desire to emphasise also that as a means of creating in the working class the frame of mind necessary to the upbuilding of this new order within the old, we taught, and I have yet seen no reason to reconsider our attitude upon this matter, that the interests of one were the interests of all, and that no consideration of a contract with a section of the capitalist class absolved any section of us from the duty of taking instant action to protect other sections when said sections were in danger from the capitalist enemy. Our attitude always was that in the swiftness and unexpectedness of our action lay our chief hopes of temporary victory, and since permanent peace was an illusory hope until permanent victory was secured, temporary victories were all that need concern us. We realised that every victory gained by the working class would be followed by some capitalist development that in course of time would tend to nullify it, but that until that development was perfect the fruits of our victory would be ours to enjoy, and the resultant moral effect would be of incalculable value to the character and to the mental attitude of our class towards their rulers. It will thus be seen that in our view – and now that I am about to point the moral I may personally appropriate it and call it my point of view – the spirit, the character, the militant spirit, the fighting character of the organisation, was of the first importance. I believe that the development of the fighting spirit is of more importance than the creation of the theoretically perfect organisation; that, indeed, the most theoretically perfect organisation may, because of its very perfection and vastness, be of the greatest possible danger to the revolutionary movement if it tends, or is used, to repress and curb the fighting spirit of comradeship in the rank and file.

[ingliz]

About the "arbitrary" part, you responded:

You argue that, in the 1880's, Engels thought state capitalism, government ownership of the means of production, was arbitrary and wrong. Quoting two passages from Engels (The Communist Manifesto & Principles of Communism), I show that, using your argument, he supported an arbitrary state capitalism in the 1840's.

This is all very silly as we both agree that Soviet state capitalism/socialism was not arbitrary.

the most theoretically perfect organisation may, because of its very perfection and vastness, be of the greatest possible danger to the revolutionary movement if it tends, or is used, to repress and curb the fighting spirit of comradeship in the rank and file.

I would argue your "most theoretically perfect organisation" because of its very perfection does just that.

co-operative

Why use the word, that even back in 1901 came with baggage, when the sentence works perfectly well without it?

Socialism properly implies above all things [...] control by the workers of the machinery of production.

Maybe, it is because in terms of governance, Connolly advocated a Co-operative Commonwealth.

[The Immortal Goon]

You argue that, in the 1880's, Engels thought state capitalism, government ownership of the means of production, was arbitrary and wrong.

I argue that state capitalism is not socialism.

Quoting two passages from Engels (The Communist Manifesto & Principles of Communism), I show that, using your argument, he supported an arbitrary state capitalism in the 1840's.

He did not call it socialism. And, in fact, in the second work specifically spells out that it's not socialism.

The "arbitrary" part that you're somehow hung up on is to, almost at random, declare something that isn't socialism socialism.

[ingliz]

almost at random

It is not a random act.

It is the endorsement of the historic fact that the U.S.S.R. has entered a new phase of development, the phase of the completion of the building of Socialist society and the gradual transition to Communism.

p.s. Sorry for the edits in my last post, You are not usually so prompt in your reply so I didn't check to see if you had posted.