[FallenRaptor]

I think you're contradicting yourself here. First you define state as an instrument, an instrument of the ruling class. Next you define the state as entity composed of all classes which as such contains the ruling class.

It's not really a contradiction, since the word "state" is usually defined as what Pikachu described(which is what I meant in the latter sentence).

How can an organisation be a class? Parties are class organisations, which is not the same as them being classes. You could say that the CP was an organisation of the ruling class of the USSR (it couldn't have been in power for years otherwise), in which case jaakko would agree.

That's what I meant. High-ranking party leaders & bureaucrats within the CP were the ruling class of those countries.

Looking within one state, how do you plan to remove the class difference between - let's say, city workers and farmers?

A proletarian is someone who has no ownership over the means of production and has to sell his/her labor for a living. It doesn't matter where you work.

[jaakko]

So which societies don't have a state?

Primitive society and communism (except vis-a-vis foreign class enemies).

How? By definition: "A state is a political association with effective sovereignty over a geographic area."

Geographical authority is one trait common to all states, but not what defines its essence from a historical perspective. In any case it doesn't make state a territory. This may sound unnecessary, but we're dealing with a problem of definitions here. Therefore we should be precise and consistent with how we use the debated concepts.

It makes sense to me: people+territory+government=state.

Maybe you could explain the logic hidden in this formula? I find it rather confusing. Do you at least agree that the state is a political organisation of society? Government is only one necessary organ of state. People and territory are not components of the state, but objects under its authority.

Looking within one state, how do you plan to remove the class difference between - let's say, city workers and farmers?

For the sake of being precise, I must first say that classes are not within the state. The state belongs to the political 'superstructure' of the society while the classes belong to its economic 'base'. But anyway... the class difference between labourers of the city and the countryside can only be abolished by making their relationship to the means of production similar. There are examples of such development both in a capitalist and a socialist framework. In the process of building a socialist society it has usually meant raising relations of production in the countryside from simple group ownership to higher stages of socialist property i.e. towards the property of the whole people (embodied in the form of state ownership during socialism).

Ironic that it is the elite, educated bourgeoisie who are to guide and shepherd the proletarian sheep.

Not the bourgeoisie or even the petty-bourgeoisie as a whole, but educated individuals of various middle strata (mainly the intelligentsia). It's a historical fact that scientific socialism was brought into the labour movement from outside of the illiterate proletariat. Nothing ironic about it. Since then the scientific socialism has been adopted by the most advanced section of the proletariat itself, which nowadays is the main force responsible for upholding it within the labour movement. This is manifested, among other things, in the overwhelmingly proletarian composition of the Marxist-Leninist parties.

Why should they follow your plan instead of that of the capitalists?

It's not a matter of "shoulds" but struggle.

High-ranking party leaders & bureaucrats within the CP were the ruling class of those countries.

How do you define class?

[pikachu]

Do you at least agree that the state is a political organisation of society? Government is only one necessary organ of state. People and territory are not components of the state, but objects under its authority.

Yes, I agree that a state is a unit of political organization, but I find that territorial sovereignty is also a requirement.
Another, perhaps a little more precise definition of the state is given by Max Weber. It says that a state is a political/social entity which holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force over a certain area. It consequently follows, that a state which holds sovereignty over no territory is essentially powerless.

Note also that he views the state as a single entity, which includes all the population residing within its borders, disregarding of its citizenship status or participation in the government.

it has usually meant raising relations of production in the countryside from simple group ownership to higher stages of socialist property i.e. towards the property of the whole people (embodied in the form of state ownership during socialism).

So, in Soviet terms, from kolkhoz to sovkhoz?
And if the transition from private farming to social farming was complete, then would you say that the class difference between the farmers and factory workers was eliminated?

[FallenRaptor]

How do you define class?

By relation to the means of production. Seeing that the bureaucrats & party leaders were the ones that controlled the means of production(unlike the workers they claimed to represent), I think they would qualify as their own class.

[ingliz]

For Socialism is nothing but the next step forward from state capitalist monopoly. In other words, Socialism is nothing but state capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people; by this token it ceases to be capitalist monopoly.

As *Stalin's USSR* was a state capitalist/socialist monopoly and did not benefit the whole people, only the new evolving class of the bureacratic elite, I think I can cite Lenin when I say Stalinism wasn't socialist but wholly capitalist.

ARTICLE 12. In the U.S.S.R. work is a duty and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: "He who does not work, neither shall he eat."
The principle applied in the U.S.S.R. is that of socialism: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work."

As can be seen in this piece of Marxist revisionism. The above formula is applicable to a socialist state "just emerging from the womb of capitalism".

What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it

Its value should be decided by hours worked and an equal hourly rate which is paid in goods from the common store.This is not wage labour with differentials as described by Trotsky.

In order to increase the productive forces, it is necessary to resort to the customary norms of wage payment – that is, to the distribution of life’s goods in proportion to the quantity and quality of individual labor.

Stalin had previously said the USSR was "irrevocably socialist" but applied the formula in a capitalistic fashion against socialist principles

*And now the cities we ruled over assumed a foreign aspect; we felt ourselves. sinking into the mire-paralysed, corrupted ... Money lubricated the entire machine just as under capitalism. A million and a half unemployed received relief- inadequate relief-in the big towns Classes were reborn under our very eyes; at the bottom of the scale, the unemployed receiving 24 roubles a month; at the top, the engineer receiving 800; and between the two, the party functionary with 222, but obtaining a good many things free of charge. There was a growing chasm between the prosperity of the few and the misery of the many ...*

"distribution according to labor," that formula has every outward appearance of payment of labor – as of any other commodity – at value, a basic manifestation of the dominance of the law of value under capitalism

Explain how Lenin's description of a capitalist state differs in any way from Stalin's state Jaako?

In other words: under capitalism we have a state in the proper sense of the word, that is, special machinery for the suppression of one class by another, and of the majority by the minority at that! Naturally, for the successful discharge of such a task as the systematic suppression by the exploiting minority of the exploited majority, the greatest ferocity and savagery of suppression are required, seas of blood are required through which mankind is marching in slavery, serfdom, and wage­labor.

I am not the only one who is ideologically confused Potemkin.

With the demand for a new dialectical law free of contradictions, they seek to make, not the masses, but the totalitarian bureaucracy ("the critics"), the driving force of history. Idealism has thus been enthroned in the Kremlin, and scientific socialism reduced to the petty-bourgeois socialism of a Proudhon

http://www.marxists.org/archive/dunayev ... alsify.htm

Trotsky called the USSR a "degenerated worker's State" to conform to Marxist orthodox theory but under Stalin and his 'socialism in one country' policy I think it ceased to be a worker's State altogether.

EDIT-*

[Roam]

In my experience, most working class people I know despise socialism.

Why would the segment of society who is most likely to benefit from socialism hate it so?

No offence but such people are too retarded to be considered legitimate as sources anyway.

Since when does a WORKING CLASS proletarian become a supporter of capitalism without selling his IQ on the way?

As Stalinism was a state capitalist/socialist monopoly and did not benefit the whole people, only the new evolving class of the bureacratic elite, I think I can cite Lenin when I say Stalinism wasn't socialist but wholly capitalist.

What's that supposed to mean?

Secondly, there's no such thing as "Stalinism".
If you're referring to the political doctrine used in the USSR during Stalin's time as party secretary, then you're referring to Marxism-Leninism.

[Potemkin]

I think I can cite Lenin when I say Stalinism wasn't socialist but wholly capitalist.

Please do; I'd be very interested to read that quote.

[ingliz]

Please explain why you think Stalin's regime was socialism. I can see it as a step back to go forward, as true socialism can only arise in a mature capitalist state according to Engels, but Stalin said the USSR was socialist.

Potemkin the quote:

V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, London, Vol.XXI, Book 1 wrote:
"For Socialism is nothing but the next step forward from state capitalist monopoly. In other words, Socialism is nothing but state capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people; by this token it ceases to be capitalist monopoly"

Stalin himself admits to disregarding, revising, Marxist theory

We cannot expect the Marxist classics, separated as they were from our day by a period of 45 or 55 years, to have foreseen each and every zigzag of history in the distant future and in every separate country. It would be ridiculous to expect the Marxist classics to have elaborated for our benefit ready-made solutions for each and every theoretical problem that might arise in a particular country 50 or 100 years afterwards, so that we, the descendants of the Marxist classics, might calmly doze at the fireside and munch ready-made solutions.

Roam -I edited my last post to make my meaning clearer and inserted a quote. I believe Stalin's new constitution of 1936 is enough to characterise Marxist-Leninism as Stalinism. Lenin considered himself to be a Marxist. It also helps differentiate Stalin's Marxist-Leninism from the revisionist Marxist-Leninism of Khrushchev

Comrade Stalin created a number of original works of Marxist-Leninist theory, that represented by themselves a serious contribution to Leninism

This doesn't mean I believe Stalin was a theorist or was constrained by Marxist theory. I believe Stalin's actions were purely pragmatic and it was cleverer theoreticians combined with the cult of personality that gave his 'theories' a spurious 'marxist' respectability. The theory was adapted to fit the policy not the policy adapted to conform to Marxist theory.

I am not a Marxist-Leninist because it is a 'closed box' which forces its adherents to deny the basic tenet of Socialism, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need ...", whilst attempting to transform the particular historic circumstance of the Soviet Union into a universal applicable to the whole world.
If I am a Neo-Marxist, hoots of derision all round, so be it.

I believe in the general schema provided by Marx, but -- and it is a big 'but', -- it must be a 'Marxism' liberated from ... the old guard of mummified Stalinists.

[fris_ke]

Trotsky called the USSR a "degenerated worker's State" to conform to Marxist orthodox theory but under Stalin and his 'socialism in one country' policy I think it ceased to be a worker's State altogether.

How can a state be a workers state, that is a state that serves the interests of the workers. A state serves only those who controll it's apperatus.

No offence but such people are too retarded to be considered legitimate as sources anyway.

Ahhh, retarded because they do not share your perspective, if only we all thought the same then the revoloution would go smoother.

Secondly, there's no such thing as "Stalinism".
If you're referring to the political doctrine used in the USSR during Stalin's time as party secretary, then you're referring to Marxism-Leninism.

Indeed, then let us put our cards on the table and describe marxism-lenninism as a corrupt broken idealogy.

as true socialism can only arise in a mature capitalist state according to Engels

Engels said it so it must be true. (not criticsing the poster, but those who follow prophits not human experience)

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

My only guess can be that the Karl Roves of the world have found a way to distract political attention away from economic and class issues and toward cultural issues, and the poorer parts of society, for some reason or another, tend toward backward-thinking when it comes to race, gender, sexuality, and science.

But I'm sure that American anti-left propaganda and the belief held by many proletarians that they still have a chance to strike it rich probably keeps many away from socialism.

Because of this I gave up on trying to promote socialism and instead adopted a few of its more noble and immediately practical goals to a model of interventionist capitalism.

[Gweedo]

It is Socialist nature, by definition, to be democratic, as it establishes a direct democracy. The USSR attempted to be socialist but failed to do so. Lenin himself failed to do this, he modified Marx's text to better suit Russian authoritarianism. Stalin's regime and even Lenins was as such highly authoritarian and totalitarian. The USSR was nothing but a dictatorship that hid behind the face of Socialism. Stalin's regime was plagued by paranoia nad death, I recognize Stalin as the worst dictator in history seconded only by Hitler, it is estimated that around 1,000,000 to 60,000,000 Russians disappeared or died in his Gulag. Not only this but for a decent or democratic socialist state to rise in Russia alone is completely purposterous. Russia's history is plagued by oppression and war ever since the fall of Kievan Rus and possibly before. The United States was created through a war against a monarchial tyrant and essentially an alliance between the states while Russia was formed through conquest by Moscowy. You cannot possibly use the Soviet Union as a legitamite example of Socialism or most other socialist states since nearly every socialist nation that has risen was influenced by the USSR in some way.

Capitalism has even been cited by American right-wing politicians (not neo-conservatives, but moderate, center-right) to contradict democracy as large monopolies rise and dominate markets, such as Microsoft. The massive economic capability of these corporations gives them massive political influence as we can see through lobbying and bribes. Presidential candidates often have to make bargains with certain large corporations such as Exxon Mobile for campaign funds. Corporations are unelected economic bodies weilding considerable political influence. The words unelected, economic and body should not be used in the same sentance.

Capitalism is a nations growth spurt. Growth occurs rapidly early on but as time passes that growth slows as you can see today. We don't need a system that runs on the essence of profit when we can have a system that runs on the essence of equality when the handicaps of the latter no longer apply. Socialism does far better in a developed nation such as Germany or the United States than it does in nations with oppressive histories and underdeveloped economies such as Russia. Yes Socialism does have a potential for authoritarianism, just as Capitalism does. Hell the Patriot Act and 9/11 very much resemble the Enabling Act and the Reichstag fire.

Feudalism was based on Aristocracy. Capitalism replaces Feudalism, and you have less aristocracy because more power is given to the people. Socialism replaces capitalism, and you have even less aristocracy because the system attempts to create more eqyality while giving more power to the people, IF the people and those establishing the system attempt to do it correctly as America's Forefathers had attepted to correctly establish Capitalism (Which they but that all changed in the 20th century).

[Arina]

I think they know that socialism is the ideology (it's not the economics, it's the ideology/tool to rule/govern with) to keep them quiet - if you want too much, you are against the system and will be thrown into a Gulag. That's why.

[EuropeanNationalist]

Because they are brainwashed by the media ?
They are told socialism is bad, and capitalism is goo
Maybe

[Helena Handcart]

I think Lenin addressed the issue of the need for socialist ideology to be conveyed to the proletariat from an external social element in 'What is to be Done?' Lenin believed that, left to their own devices, the proletariat will tend to develop only a 'trade-union consciousness'; they will fail to become a class for itself as well as a class in itself. It is the radical intelligentsia who are in a position to develop socialist theory and convey it to the proletariat. Otherwise, the working class will tend to simply adopt the values and worldview of their bourgeois masters, which is what we've seen over the past twenty-five years or so. After all, let's not forget that Marxism itself was the creation of middle-class intellectuals - Marx, Engels and Lenin were hardly unimpeachably proletarian in their class origins, after all.

Whether the SWP are able to fulfil that role adequately or not is another matter. I suspect they are not.

Leninism is posion to working class independence. And Lenin wasn't "middle class". A middle class as has been and can be described in western Europe has never existed in Russia.

[FallenRaptor]

Lenin is often misinterpreted of believing that workers could only achieve trade-union conciousness by themselves. In "What is to be done?", he was simply stated the fact that that is what has happened in every industrialized state thus far and while he acknowledged that intelligentsia from upper classes have often been the ones to build on socialist ideology, he said "This does not mean, of course, that the workers have no part in creating such an ideology".