[Marxism] Communism and socialism

[Aaron Aarons]

>From: Jscotlive at aol.com
>Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 02:16:28 EDT
>Subject: [Marxism] Communism and socialism
>
>Eli:
> 
>Would that mean the old definition of "communism" has to be thrown out,  or re-thought?
>
>Reply:
> 
>Not at all, Eli. I've always felt the Leninist definition of socialism as constituting the lowest stage of communism to be apt. The focus of the work of Marx and Engels was the deconstruction and analysis of capitalism, its provenance and how its development fit in with their materialist conception of history. Marx never gave much thought to the transition from capitalism to communism, I think because he was clever enough to know that predictions of the future are about as useful to a revolutionary as indicators on a submarine. He certainly did not envisage underdevelopment as offering the potential for socialist revolution, as was the case in Russia. Lenin and Trotsky understood that due to Russia's underdevelopment they were relying on the Russian Revolution to act as a catalyst for international revolution, and that without this international revolution they could go no further than an attempt to develop Russia's productive forces under socialist planning, knowing full we
 ll that socialism under conditions of underdevelopment is impossible to achieve.

Is "underdevelopment" definable in absolute terms, or is it relative to the level of "development" of the most "developed" countries.

>The SU was thereafter stuck in a transitional stage from capitalism to socialism, with communism nothing more than a dream for a future society far beyond their grasp given the material conditions they were facing. They adopted the word communism to describe their party and state as much for propaganda and agitational reasons as any other.
> 
>Communism in this light requires not only the superabundance of an advanced capitalist society,

Even the less industrialized countries today produce more material goods per capita than the most advanced capitalist society did in the days of Marx and Engels. If they don't produce enough of basics like food, it's because their ruling elites would rather produce goods for export to the imperialist countries in exchange for luxury goods and weapons.

The planet can't afford "the superabundance of an advanced capitalist society". And, as long as that "superabundance" is desired, it's definition will expand to include a superabundance of whatever is the latest gadget or trinket. As some insightful thinker said, "You can't ever get enough of what you don't really want."

>but also a massive shift in consciousness. The social conditioning undergone by humanity under capitalism has lasted 350  years. It seems reasonable to expect communist ideas and consciousness just  as long to create the 'new man' that Che described.

That logic is absurd! You might as well say that "the social conditioning undergone by humanity under class society has lasted 3,000 years. [etc.]" Moreover, in many parts of the world, capitalism is fairly recent, except perhaps as an alien force that ruled at the point of a gun.

But the need for "a massive shift in consciousness" is real, and it's not helped along by leftists who talk about "providing jobs" as if the highest human goal were to be a worker bee in a capitalist or "socialist" hive, or producing more junk to substitute quantity for quality of life.

There's more than enough production in the world to provide a decent life for all in a socialist/communist society. But without socialism/communism, no amount of production will be enough.

 - Aaron