More than attempt, the socialist countries run by communist parties, the ones attempting to build towards communism, have been responsible for some of the most rapid improvements in living conditions in history. Socialism and communism aren’t like birds and ducks, but more like a sprout and a tree. Socialism is a transitional process between capitalism and communism, where production and distribution are gradually collectivized into communism.
Again, nations are not states. They aren’t borders, they aren’t whatever confusing idea you believe they are. Marx factually supported proletarian internationalism, which included explicit support for Irish and Polish liberation, to list two examples, against colonialism. Reaching over national borders to support national liberation is a core facet of internationalism as Marx believed the proletariat has more in common with each other than their own bourgeoisie. These ideas are mutually supporting, not contradictory.
You continue to butcher the national question as it exists today. Marx supported the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is a state that cannot but wither as it abolishes class. Socialist states do not stand against Marx, but for them. Your idealist understanding of Marx is closer to anarchism than Marxism. National sovereignty does not mean the establishment of permanent borders or anything of the sort. It means that a nation oppressing another cannot be free, a call for the international proletariat to support the proletariat in oppressed countries against the oppressor countries. This is internationalism.
Regarding China, their socialist market economy is entirely in line with Marx. The basis of markets are decentralized production, the basis of socialized production is highly centralized production. So as to not introduce antagonisms, and develop the productive forces rapidly, markets are employed in underdeveloped industries. This is straight out of Principles of Communism and Manifesto of the Communist Party when Marx and Engels talk about how it is impossible to abolish private property at one stroke as its impossible to multiply the productive forces to their necessary levels overnight.
You collapse internationalism into blindness to imperialism and colonialism. This is the peak of revisionism against Marx, who I again will state supported the Polish and Irish against colonialism as a necessary blow to capitalism for both oppressor and oppressed.
Again, I am upholding Marx’s position on internationalism. I’ve explained that you have vulgarized it repeatedly by painting Marx as an idealist. Marx supported Ireland, Poland, and more against colonialism precisely because he was an internationalist, he directly said that no nation can be free while it oppresses another.
State it clearly: where am I contradicting Marx?
Vagueposting? Seriously?
Nations are not states. I am not confusing Marx, here, you continue to vulgarize his views. Marx was an internationalist, on this we agree, but because you do not understand the concept of a nation you vulgarize what that internationalism means. Looking at Marx’s view of Ireland, Marx stressed that the national liberation of Ireland from British colonialism was in fact the correct step towards proletarian internationalism, and that therefore the primary task was liberation from colonialism before liberation from capitalism could be achieved.
Marx indeed said that the international working class has no country. This is indeed true, the overall goal is not individual national supremacy, but international solidarity towards an interconnected future. However, Marx also understood colonialism and the struggle for national liberation, and supported these movements. Lenin and Stalin would go on to develop these ideas further, but they did not divert from Marx on this point.
Socialists today are not more nationalist. You fundamentally misunderstand how internationalism actually works according to Marx himself. Marxists today have a more developed theory of the national question than existed with Marx, but this does not make socialists today “more nationalist.” You’ve fundamentally confused the national question as it existed in Marx’s time, and vulgarized him into a class reductionist, one that does not understand primary and secondary contradictions.
The embrace of proletarian internationalism, which includes support for the national sovereignty of all peoples, is what’s common on Lemmy. Not these bourgeois ideas of national supremacy of nations, which you have inserted into the equation. Marx and Engels themselves stated that no nation can be free while it oppresses other nations, meaning even in Marx’s time national liberation was a core aspect of proletarian internationalism. You turn him into an idealist that does not recognize the real, material process of nations.
States and nations are not the same thing, and I think you are confusing me and Marx by conflating the two. Nations are historically constituted, stable communies of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life and culture. Nations seek sovereignty, through the establishment of a state in their interests. The abolition of the state can only be done once a nation is sovereign, and this is intrinsically tied to the class struggle between workers and the bourgeoisie.
Secondly, regarding private ownership within socialism. The economic basis of markets is in decentralized production. The economic basis of social production and distribution is large, centralized production. Trying to force one into the other forces antagonistic contradictions. The very same contradiction that gives rise to the proletariat taking power through revolution, the centralization of markets creating a new economic basis for social production, also works against socialist construction if this economic base does not exist yet and a socialist state dogmatically collectivizes even decentralized production. This is the basis for the marketization that exists in socialist countries in secondary and underdeveloped industries.
No, you’re fundamentally incorrect about Marx’s position, and you’re butchering mine. Marx, like the Marxists that took after him, understood the national struggle as a struggle for sovereignty, the basis of which is in internationalism. Internationalism and nationalism are not contradictory, nor did I or Marx ever say that Marx supported the Polish because they were nationalist. This is reductive, as is collapsing the entire working class into one without nations. Marx did not see nations as bourgeois constructs, in fact he explicitly stated that communism would bring about the end of exploitation of nation by nation, not just man by man.
Lenin developed the national question further, as did Stalin. However, the basis of the national question as Marxists understand it today, as one where internationalism can only exist in practice between sovereign nations, and that therefore the quest for sovereignty is a progressive struggle, was with Marx from the onset, hence why he supported Poland against Russia, not just for the sake of Russian revolution but also for Polish independence. The same again happened with Marx supporting the freeing of the Statesian slaves.
As for Marx, he never bothered charting what a socialist state would look like, correct, but he always supported the dictatorship of the proletariat, the absolute rule of the working class against reactionary classes. This is a historically necessary process, one where he made the famous quote:
We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.
This isn’t because Marx was a marvel villain, but was because he supported the absolute power of the working class as a historically necessary process.
For a one-and-done, while it’s no substitute to dedicated study of in-depth works, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific does a much better job than Manifesto at conveying diamat, histmat, and the underlying process of socialist construction in a digestible way quickly. That’s why Marx and Engels themselves noted how effective it was as an agitational pamphlet.
You have a dogmatic view of nationalism, ironically. Nationalism, when resisting colonialism and imperialism, is progressive. The national struggle is a class struggle. Nationalism can easily turn into something reactionary when it is done to reinforce colonialism and imperialism as well. Marx absolutely did agree with this, evidenced by his support of the Polish nationalist movement for independence. The working class is an international class, but this does not mean they are without nations. To erase the national struggle is class reductionism.
As for socialist states, they have indeed been developing and growing. The development of the dictatorship of the proletariat is not something Marx opposed, you seem to fundamentally misunderstand Marx’s theory of the withering of the state in the transition from lower-stage communism to higher-stage communism. The economic basis of this is one where class struggle has ended, and in a world where imperialism is dominant socialist states cannot wither away entirely. They must react to the siege they exist in.
There are a couple of problems I have with your critiques.
First, defense of existing socialism is not a neutral process. It’s done to protect socialist construction, warts and all, while it advances. This is not done uncritically, critique is generally not shared among the public as much as support is, because time has proven that imperialist bourgeoisie will exploit any disunity to turn workers against themselves. Breaking up unity is how the bourgeoisie maintains power.
Second, nationalism. The modern internationalism is very much in line with Marx, and recognizes the right of nations to self-determination. Internationalism begins with national sovereignty, which is why often reactionary countries are supported in national liberation movements when this improves the position of the international working class, such as the strong support for Palestine despite the resistance not being socialist (except for groups like the PFLP).
Finally, the withering of the state. The job of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to develop the means of production to a large scale, which is the basis of socialized production, and maintain rule of the proletariat, gradually collectivizing production and distribution. The goal isn’t to abolish government or administration, but instead what Marx called the state, which is not synonymous with how a classless administrative body would work.
That pretty much sums it up.
Stalin’s views were not at all at odds with Marx and Engels.
Regarding Critique of the Gotha Programme, it’s important to actually understand the context:
Let us take, first of all, the words “proceeds of labor” in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product.
From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.
These deductions from the “undiminished” proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity.
There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption.
Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.
Only now do we come to the “distribution” which the program, under Lassallean influence, alone has in view in its narrow fashion – namely, to that part of the means of consumption which is divided among the individual producers of the co-operative society.
The “undiminished” proceeds of labor have already unnoticeably become converted into the “diminished” proceeds, although what the producer is deprived of in his capacity as a private individual benefits him directly or indirectly in his capacity as a member of society.
Just as the phrase of the “undiminished” proceeds of labor has disappeared, so now does the phrase of the “proceeds of labor” disappear altogether.
Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase “proceeds of labor”, objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning.
What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, 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. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. 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. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.
Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.
Hence, equal right here is still in principle – bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case.
In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.
But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.
But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.
In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
Essentially, laborers cannot recieve the “full individual value” of their labor-power. What happens is that the proletariat becomes in possession as a class of the total social product, to distribute as a class. Between capitalism and communism is the radical transition from one into the next, known as socialism.
Regarding communism in one country, this is a matter of practical building of socialism. Peace benefits socialism, and socialist construction. Therefore, one should focus on highly developing socialism so that it does not fall under risk of falling. Socialism was established not in the developed capitalist world, but in backwards feudal societies. Socialists have had to deal with these implications post-Marx.
Communism cannot be achieved in one country, but the fact of the matter is that the correct course was to bunker down and pursue the socialist project regardless.
You cannot mechanically apply analysis from one situation to another. Marxists do not read Marx as evangelicals read the Bible, we read Marx to understand the world so as to change it. Marx was not a prophet, and thus the world developed in ways he could not predict. This is why he never bothered with mapping out communist society, because to do so would violate how we understand dialectical materialism.
Can you elaborate a bit more? What groups stand against Marx while claiming to adhere to his beliefs, in your view? I agree with the idea that many clash with Marx, but a gut feeling tells me we disagree on which groups.
No problem! Feel free to leave any comments or questions you may have if you choose the reading list option. The Marxism portal approach should take around an hour for the whole thing (minus the mini reading list it also recommends) so that’s also helpful if you just want to know the basics.
A few quick points:
None of it was satirical.
Marx claimed that he wasn’t a Marxist as a response to those of his time labeling themselves Marxists. He still developed what became Marxism as an ideology.
The dictatorship of the proletariat isn’t one person, but the absolute rule of the entire working class itself over capitalists. It’s saying that workers run the world, not capitalists, ever again, and that when there are no capitalists all workers will simply be people, a classless society.
Unfamiliar, sorry.
My point isn’t that I think people should never read anything by Heinrich or anything, nor that I am arguing for purity. I think Heinrich presents a very specific reading of Marx that lends itself to opposing practical action with respect to existing socialist states, and that this insistence on adhering to Marx and minimizing the contributions of Engels downplays Marx’s lifelong agency and cowork with Engels. Harvey is more agnostic, in that sense, and defends the Fowkes translation, based more on the French edition that Marx developed latest than earlier Marx-only editions.
Really, this gets more into esoteric and usually trivial differences. Among modern Marxist economists, I am most a fan of Ian Paul Wright over others.
I prefer David Harvey, who sometimes misses the mark slightly. Heinrich is closely associated with the Neue Marx-Lektüre school of Marxism that deviates pretty heavily from Marx’s actual ideas IMO, and quite far from Marxism-Leninism, which is where I stand.
To put it very simply, Marx’s internationalism supported movements against colonialism and imperialism. He believed the proletariat had more in common with the proletariat of other countries, and called upon them all to work together. This, however, as understood by Marx meant supporting the movement of Ireland as a whole against the British Empire, of Poland against the Russian Empire. He correctly understood that without combatting colonialism, the proletariat of oppressor and oppressed countries could not be free. The quest for national sovereignty is principally an anti-colonial movement.
The abolition of borders is not the same as the abolition of nations. Marx never stated that the nation would wither, but that states would. He did not believe nationality to be a “bourgeois construct.” The state, borders, all of this withers as society gradually collectivizes across the entire globe, in international revolution, according to Marx and Engels alone. At this point, no developed theories of nations or imperialism or self-determination exists yet as core to Marxism-Leninism, but even within Marx himself there is a strong understanding that colonialism is a barrier to proletarian revolution, not merely capitalism at a state level.
“Workers of all countries, unite!” The international struggle is one that combats the bourgeoisie of all states, of all nations. However, it principally fights the colonizing bourgeoisie as the primary antagonist when this is a barrier to revolution, as it was in Poland and Ireland. This is the national question before Lenin and Stalin.
Any condescension you see on my part is a response to the repeated, incorrect claims that I am revising Marx. Reading Marx’s work on Ireland and Poland make it clear that Marx understood colonialism to be a core obstacle, and thus simply saying “fight the bourgeoisie” without any nuance to it would be reductive and vulgarize Marx. This is why Marx supported the Statesian north against the south, despite both sides being bourgeois.