----- Original Message ----- From: "Lew Higgins" <lew at higgins.org.uk> To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 12:22 PM Subject: RE: [lbo-talk] RE: Democratic Communism
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: lbo-talk-admin at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-admin at lbo-talk.org]On
> > Behalf Of Shane Mage
> > Sent: 07 November 2003 17:31
> > To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> > Subject: [lbo-talk] RE: Democratic Communism
> >
> >
> > >>>.... democratic communism is not possible
> > >>
> > >>But this is the most elementary Marxism (as to be found
> > >>in "State and Revolution").
> > >
> > >Does Lenin get the last word on what Marxism is?
> > >
> > >Doug
> >
> > Apparently so, since after 86 years no valid refutation
> > of Lenin's S&R interpretation can be cited.
> >
> > Shane
>
> Well, here's a few for a start.
>
> In State and Revolution Lenin wrote of a "scientific distinction" between
> socialism and communism:
>
> "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"
> (www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s1).
>
> The first sentence of this quote is simply untrue and Lenin must have
known
> it was. Marx and Engels used the terms socialism and communism
> interchangeably to refer to the post-revolutionary society of common
> ownership of the means of production. It is true that in his Critique of
the
> Gotha Programme, Marx wrote of a transition between a lower phase of
> *communism* and a higher phase of *communism*. But Lenin claimed that
> socialism (or the first phase of communism) is a transitional society
> between capitalism and full communism, in which there is both a state and
> money economy. According to Lenin: "It follows that under communism there
> remains for a time not only bourgeois right, but even the bourgeois state,
> without the bourgeoisie!... For the state to wither away completely,
> complete communism is necessary." But Lenin failed to see what this would
> involve. In effect, the theory of "socialism" as a transitional society
was
> to become an apology for state capitalism.
>
> In State and Revolution Lenin claimed that according to Marx work and
wages
> would be guided by the "socialist principle" (though in fact it comes from
> St Paul): "He who does not work shall not eat." This was eventually
adopted
> in the USSR Constitution of 1936 and amended to read: "to each according
to
> his work." as a "principle of socialism." Marx and Engels used no such
> "principle" and they made no such distinction concerning socialism. Lenin
in
> fact did not "re-establish what Marx really taught on the subject of the
> state", as he claimed, but substantially distorted it to suit the
situation
> in which the Bolsheviks found themselves. When Stalin announced the
doctrine
> of "socialism in one country" in 1936 (i.e. the establishment of state
> capitalism in Russia) he was drawing on an idea implicit in Lenin's
> writings.
>
> In State and Revolution, Lenin gave special emphasis to the concept of the
> "dictatorship of the proletariat". This phrase was sometimes used by Marx
> and Engels and meant working class conquest of power, which (unlike Lenin)
> they did not confuse with a socialist society. Engels had cited the Paris
> Commune of 1871 as an example of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The
> Commune impressed itself upon Marx and Engels for its ultra-democratic
> features, which involved a non-hierarchical structure and the use of
> revocable delegates. Lenin, on the other hand, tended to identify the
> dictatorship of the proletariat, "i.e., the organization of the vanguard",
> with a state ruled by a vanguard party. When the Bolsheviks actually
gained
> power they centralised political power more and more in the hands of the
> Communist Party. Modern-day Leninists claim that the rise of Stalin was
due
> to the ravages of civil war and Russian isolation, but the fact remains
that
> "democratic centralism" can allow dictators to rise to power and all
openly
> pro-capitalist political parties have a similar structure which can allow
> the leadership to act undemocratically.
>
> --
> Lew
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk