Blog Comments

  1. sanpal's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Q
    I do find myself wondering though about the need for a specific "state capitalist" stage during the DotP.
    It is undoubted the specific state capitalist stage has to exist some time and even without quotes i.e. with normal commodity-money relations. "Specific" will be expressed only by a ratio of a state capitalist and private property on the means of production, state regulation of types of production and types of goods by change of size of income tax (socialization of consumption), etc. And of course to control all aspects of society by Proletariat through its State Institute of Power (the DotP).
    Surely we can expect workers collectives forming a communist relations already, in a limited way, under capitalism (the cooperative movement), which could potentially and under the guidance of a communist programme be developed further? If that's the case, then "state capitalism" at best runs parallel with the "lower stage" of communism right from the start of the DotP?
    Quite so, but not otherwise, because not all workers realize at once need for the communistic relations on production. Some part of workers will wish to remain the proletariat and to look at result of the new relations on the example of the companions.
    This actually underpins that we don't really need the state to start forming economic relationships, although we need state power to have the political clout to implement such relations in a generalised way. Said differently: We don't need state bureaucrats to begin with communist relations, just to keep the capitalists at bay and aide us in the class struggle post-capitalism.
    Yes, communistic relations in production have to base on selfmanagement what means the lack of the state governing, the lack of state bureaucrats. The economy has to be nonmarket, planned and based on labour time sertificates. So it has to be two parallel economies: capitalist and communistic which have to be in natural competition. It is dialectic method which does not contradict to marxism. And this dialectical development of communism is just shown in the schedule.

    PS forgive for a delay with the answer
    Updated 15th December 2015 at 23:02 by sanpal
  2. Q's Avatar
    Thank you. These are useful adaptations evolving from your original. I do find myself wondering though about the need for a specific "state capitalist" stage during the DotP. Surely we can expect workers collectives forming a communist relations already, in a limited way, under capitalism (the cooperative movement), which could potentially and under the guidance of a communist programme be developed further? If that's the case, then "state capitalism" at best runs parallel with the "lower stage" of communism right from the start of the DotP?

    This actually underpins that we don't really need the state to start forming economic relationships, although we need state power to have the political clout to implement such relations in a generalised way. Said differently: We don't need state bureaucrats to begin with communist relations, just to keep the capitalists at bay and aide us in the class struggle post-capitalism.

    I'm interested in what your thoughts are on this.
  3. sanpal's Avatar
    Some explanations to the scheme:

    The dark blue and light blue - both are the capitalist mode of production. Red colour means communist mode of production which is not modification of capitalist mode of production into communist one but it is independant creation and further development of communist mode of production on own basis parallel to capitalist mode of production within the Proletarian state. Communist sector of economy has to be created on the means of production which are earlier belonging to the state and collectives of workers in such productions have to choose a communistic mode of production democratically and voluntary, and no stalins or communist parties not in the right to spread the communistic relations violently.
  4. sanpal's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Q
    I can totally find myself agreeing here. It is a better expression it seems. The only limitation of it is that socialism appears to be standing on itself, as if it was a mode of production, instead of being the transition from the old to the new.
    There is no separate "socialist" mode of production. Socialism as the transition from the old to the new is combination from two independant modes of production: the old capitalist mode of production and the new communist mode of production. Competition between these two will lead to the win one of them, I hope it will be communist MoP.
    Here it is more modified scheme:
    http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.ph...ictureid=11889

    Updated 11th August 2015 at 23:05 by sanpal
  5. bad ideas actualised by alcohol's Avatar
    shouldn't kompas give you a road instead of the other way round
  6. Die Neue Zeit's Avatar
    Great blog, comrade! Keep us updated!
  7. Q's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Die Neue Zeit
    Ah, so you're using a logical fallacy on the left to prove a point? OK.
    Precisely

    Using their logic to point to its limitations.

    Using their language so the point gets understood.
  8. Die Neue Zeit's Avatar
    Ah, so you're using a logical fallacy on the left to prove a point? OK.
  9. Q's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Die Neue Zeit
    Comrade, that would be just a generic political crisis. Just because the old order could no longer go on in the old way doesn't mean that the political crisis at hand is revolutionary. You backtracked yourself later, and superbly I might add, in your post. Revolutionary crises may or may not be synonymous with revolutionary periods, but the former exist only within the latter.
    I suppose you mean my use of the term 'revolutionary crisis', which is indeed imprecise as it is both used for revolutionary periods as it is for crises. Much of the left is however oblivious to this distinction, so I thought it best not to dwell on it but engage in this debate on the terms that the left themselves use and then show its obvious limitations.

    But yes, of course you have a valid point. This distinction should be made.

    Quote Originally Posted by Die Neue Zeit
    Quote Originally Posted by Q
    This immediately poses two issues:
    1. This takes a lot of time, decades, to build.
    2. On a purely 'political' basis, it is impossible to build such mass support, outside revolutionary times (by which time it will be too late because of point 1).
    Don't you mean during revolutionary times?
    Again, I'm waging the discussion on the left's terms. All of the spontaneist left has this idea that mass communist influence can be build during revolutionary times. As we know, this is however impossible precisely for the reason that power gaps will be filled by existing social forces. This is the reason why I put "by which time it will be too late", which was left unexplained in the post (and a little beside the main point).
  10. Die Neue Zeit's Avatar
    Comrade, that would be just a generic political crisis. Just because the old order could no longer go on in the old way doesn't mean that the political crisis at hand is revolutionary. You backtracked yourself later, and superbly I might add, in your post. Revolutionary crises may or may not be synonymous with revolutionary periods, but the former exist only within the latter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Q
    This immediately poses two issues:
    1. This takes a lot of time, decades, to build.
    2. On a purely 'political' basis, it is impossible to build such mass support, outside revolutionary times (by which time it will be too late because of point 1).
    Don't you mean during revolutionary times?
  11. Q's Avatar
    Comrade sanpal posted the following scheme here, a variation of mine:



    I can totally find myself agreeing here. It is a better expression it seems. The only limitation of it is that socialism appears to be standing on itself, as if it was a mode of production, instead of being the transition from the old to the new.
  12. Q's Avatar
    Ok, so last Wednesday there were elections and of the contested 37 seats the SP secured 3, which is a rise from 1 in 2010

    The SP got a total of 3957 votes and I got... 16
  13. Brutus's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by WCOP
    Q for President!
    Security culture, comrade!
  14. Workers-Control-Over-Prod's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Q
    Well, the campaign is in full swing

    Elections are the 19th.
    Fantastic news, comrade! This is inspiring to hear, especially when sick in bed
    Emil for President!
  15. Sentinel's Avatar
    That's awesome, Q
  16. Q's Avatar
    Well, the campaign is in full swing

    Elections are the 19th.
  17. Ritzy Cat's Avatar
    Well It's MARCH! How is it going ?
  18. Q's Avatar
    Nothing much to update. Elections are in March next year. Campaign hasn't started yet.
  19. Brutus's Avatar
    Update?
  20. Brutus's Avatar
    Remember: no entering coalitions! Good luck!
Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast