Hello, fellow bread-crumb! Thanks for making this video clearing up this common confusion of equating the DOTP with socialism (I had the wrong idea about this until seeing Cuck Philosophy's video "Marx was not a statist"). I appreciate your using so many quotations to back up your point. This is my first video I've seen of yours, I've now subscribed and belled. :)
ehh, cuck philosophy's video is highly inaccurate as it is very revisionist & tries to paint marx as some sort of libsoc (which only serves to 'defang' marx & engels to be more acceptable to anarchists & the like): ruclips.net/video/pAokAC2pZWg/видео.html ruclips.net/video/pST13gSh4fQ/видео.html
The dictatorship is supposed to be like the Roman Republic's Dictator who was elected/appointed to solve a specific problem or causa. The causa in this case is to oversee the transition from Capitalism to Communism.
It seems to me things are often mixed up in the literature around DOTP. It’s often stated that classes will be abolished then the state will wither away. But it’s seems from historical events the reverse. Class isn’t abolished but withers away under a state aiming at that goal, then the state made of individuals who are not workers, who have, through the growth and development of the state, special position and interests that come with that. The deformed workers’ states in Europe had an initial state abolition/withering of classes followed by waves of revolts aimed at destroying the state. In Russia this happened all over, Kronstadt, obviously comes to mind. Later Eastern Bloc revolts Berlin, Hungry etc. The CHEKA etc was the beginning of the state acting for its self against workers having a society without a state. Obviously the civil war was greatly facilitated by such a state. I guess working people, particularly communist workers should recognize that middle class/déclassé what have you, elements in the movement will have different class consciousness and will act accordingly.
I think you're right to make a hard distinction between the DOP and the lower stage of communism, though I don't think it is wrong to sometimes refer to the lower stage of communism as socialism, as long as the scientific content isn't lost. But the DOP is a form of state, and so the extent to which it exists is determined by the survival of capitalist relations within the context of workers' political power and nationalized means of production (small property, inequality of intellectual labor, markets, bureaucracies, etc.) That's why not only the idea of "socialism in one country," but also the thoroughly revisionist idea of the "people's republic" or "state of the whole people" is so fundamentally false and deceptive. Like bourgeois democracy, it dissolves real class antagonisms into the abstraction of "the people," claiming that socialism has been constructed when in reality remnants of capitalist relations still exist, and perhaps intensify. Contrast this concept with the one the Yugoslav Communists defined in relation to their state. "In the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat and social ownership of the means of production, the working class cannot realize its own material interests and its historic role without struggling for the development of the forces of production, for the liberation of all creative economic and political factors of society from the pressure of anti-socialist forces: small-ownership anarchy, bureaucratism, conservatism and various forms of distortion of socialist relations and socialist development." (LCY Program, 1977)
I remember there was a section though on S&R where Lenin talks about how a state might exist due to the bourgeois law under the lower phase of communism. What can be said about that?
He talks about it as a non-political state, I don't think I say anywhere in there there is absolutely no state under socialism/lower phase. Like there is not a state in terms of a dictatorship of a single class. This non-political state exists to enforce that remnant of bourgeois law. This is my understanding.
@@InDefenseOfToucans yeah you dont. It was just my understanding that the DotP typically entails a state and the withering away of the DotP means there is no state.
I feel like we will never pass lower stage socialism. we will forever be stuck in the struggle against capitalism. Socialism of historical societies will never reach a stateless, classless and money less society that contains the entire world.
A simple and sincere question. Did Trotsky agree with this view of differentiation from the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism? Is it compatible with your theory of permanent revolution? I have little knowledge about it, I would like to know. I don't know if you talk about it in another video, I know your channel a little while ago, sorry for any confusion I may be making.
Yes he did. That is why he was mocking Stalin who more than one time claimed that socialism was already achieved in Russia although it would mean for the USSR to have a much higher productivity and living standart than capitalism aswell as the abolition of classes and the state, which obviously was not the case in the USSR
My sympathies to Lenin are a bit obvious probably. I am also obviously focusing on the Bolsheviks. I can't say the channel is non-ideological because that is not true, but I am shooting for a more neutral historical tone with a focus on the history of the Bolsheviks right now. I think even from Bolsheviks who I consider wrong there is things to learn, I don't agree with Lunacharsky and others whole god builder thing, but it is part of the tradition and history of Bolshevism and so I think its important for modern communists. June-July I started to associate more with Trotskyism, though I admit I can't stand 99% of Trotskyist groups, prior to that I was a Marxist-Leninist for 7ish years. I don't intend this channel to be an ideological crusade for myself, I plan to cover many Bolsheviks and their ideas and I hope to at least give them a fair shake or at the very least show why they thought that way. We will see if I can pull this off, but say I make a video that talks about some of the different Bolshevik opinions on National Liberation I would hope I could at least make people who are sympathetic to say Bukharin's position feel the video is fair even though personally I am in full agreement with Lenin on the issue and not Bukharin. Uh hope this makes sense, maybe ill go back to the idea of explaining what my goals for this channel are.
The extent of the state under lower phase of communism is what is kept around for the enforcement of bourgeois law that remains. It is a sort of non-political state as classes have been abolished.
@@InDefenseOfToucans Oh alright yea that was my thinking too but I got kinda confused. I remember Lenin saying the state still existed despite society being classless and that the state can only whither away completely in higher communism.
I know you're attempting to come from an educational place here which I appreciate but its' deeply flawed. You are implying, without saying it, that Marx and/or Lenin see the dictatorship of the Proletariat as a 3rd distinct phase of socialism rather than the tool to bring about socialism and that argument hinges on him using communism and socialism interchangeably for the lower phase of communism (which he did) but not the higher phase (because he used socialism in a speech in 1921).
I am not implying that it is a third phase of socialism, I am implying DoTP is the transition period between Capitalism and Communism(both lower and higher phase)
@@InDefenseOfToucans that would be a third phase - DotP, lower phase, and higher phase - which neither Marx or Lenin said. Whether you think of it as a primer, precursor, phase, independent thing that exists between the lower and higher phase, that's still a third phase any way you cut it. In actuality DotP is the tool of transforming societies through the phases of socialism not a primer , precursor, or third phase
@@Davidscou how marx and lenin didnt talk about this both said that this phase would be neither capitalism or socialism and transitory it's like super clear they just didnt say that this is a 3rd phase but they say it is a phase surely
"This is a “defect”, says Marx, but it is unavoidable in the first phase of communism; for if we are not to indulge in utopianism, we must not think that having overthrown capitalism people will at once learn to work for society without any rules of law. Besides, the abolition of capitalism does not immediately create the economic prerequisites for such a change. Now, there are no other rules than those of "bourgeois law". To this extent, therefore, there still remains the need for a state, which, while safeguarding the common ownership of the means of production, would safeguard equality in labor and in the distribution of products. The state withers away insofar as there are no longer any capitalists, any classes, and, consequently, no class can be suppressed. But the state has not yet completely withered away, since the still remains the safeguarding of "bourgeois law", which sanctifies actual inequality. For the state to wither away completely, complete communism is necessary." - State and Revoultion
Hello, fellow bread-crumb! Thanks for making this video clearing up this common confusion of equating the DOTP with socialism (I had the wrong idea about this until seeing Cuck Philosophy's video "Marx was not a statist"). I appreciate your using so many quotations to back up your point. This is my first video I've seen of yours, I've now subscribed and belled. :)
ehh, cuck philosophy's video is highly inaccurate as it is very revisionist & tries to paint marx as some sort of libsoc (which only serves to 'defang' marx & engels to be more acceptable to anarchists & the like):
ruclips.net/video/pAokAC2pZWg/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/pST13gSh4fQ/видео.html
The dictatorship is supposed to be like the Roman Republic's Dictator who was elected/appointed to solve a specific problem or causa. The causa in this case is to oversee the transition from Capitalism to Communism.
I’m gay
are you sure
Excellent summary of the evidence on this, thank you!
It seems to me things are often mixed up in the literature around DOTP. It’s often stated that classes will be abolished then the state will wither away. But it’s seems from historical events the reverse. Class isn’t abolished but withers away under a state aiming at that goal, then the state made of individuals who are not workers, who have, through the growth and development of the state, special position and interests that come with that. The deformed workers’ states in Europe had an initial state abolition/withering of classes followed by waves of revolts aimed at destroying the state. In Russia this happened all over, Kronstadt, obviously comes to mind. Later Eastern Bloc revolts Berlin, Hungry etc.
The CHEKA etc was the beginning of the state acting for its self against workers having a society without a state. Obviously the civil war was greatly facilitated by such a state.
I guess working people, particularly communist workers should recognize that middle class/déclassé what have you, elements in the movement will have different class consciousness and will act accordingly.
Your videos are the best.
Bukharin was bald.
I feel really bad for him going bald as young as he did. Fs in chat for Bukharin's hair
@@InDefenseOfToucans F
@@InDefenseOfToucans F
F
F
Thanks for making this video.
I think you're right to make a hard distinction between the DOP and the lower stage of communism, though I don't think it is wrong to sometimes refer to the lower stage of communism as socialism, as long as the scientific content isn't lost. But the DOP is a form of state, and so the extent to which it exists is determined by the survival of capitalist relations within the context of workers' political power and nationalized means of production (small property, inequality of intellectual labor, markets, bureaucracies, etc.) That's why not only the idea of "socialism in one country," but also the thoroughly revisionist idea of the "people's republic" or "state of the whole people" is so fundamentally false and deceptive. Like bourgeois democracy, it dissolves real class antagonisms into the abstraction of "the people," claiming that socialism has been constructed when in reality remnants of capitalist relations still exist, and perhaps intensify. Contrast this concept with the one the Yugoslav Communists defined in relation to their state. "In the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat and social ownership of the means of production, the working class cannot realize its own material interests and its historic role without struggling for the development of the forces of production, for the liberation of all creative economic and political factors of society from the pressure of anti-socialist forces: small-ownership anarchy, bureaucratism, conservatism and various forms of distortion of socialist relations and socialist development." (LCY Program, 1977)
Good video mate cheers
I remember there was a section though on S&R where Lenin talks about how a state might exist due to the bourgeois law under the lower phase of communism.
What can be said about that?
He talks about it as a non-political state, I don't think I say anywhere in there there is absolutely no state under socialism/lower phase. Like there is not a state in terms of a dictatorship of a single class. This non-political state exists to enforce that remnant of bourgeois law. This is my understanding.
@@InDefenseOfToucans yeah you dont. It was just my understanding that the DotP typically entails a state and the withering away of the DotP means there is no state.
I feel like we will never pass lower stage socialism. we will forever be stuck in the struggle against capitalism. Socialism of historical societies will never reach a stateless, classless and money less society that contains the entire world.
I feel you. I predict that the working class won't do shit until the planet dies for good. That's wild.
Ya, that’s because we are not bees bro 🐝
Eh, I'm more hopefull
A simple and sincere question. Did Trotsky agree with this view of differentiation from the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism? Is it compatible with your theory of permanent revolution? I have little knowledge about it, I would like to know. I don't know if you talk about it in another video, I know your channel a little while ago, sorry for any confusion I may be making.
Yes he did. That is why he was mocking Stalin who more than one time claimed that socialism was already achieved in Russia although it would mean for the USSR to have a much higher productivity and living standart than capitalism aswell as the abolition of classes and the state, which obviously was not the case in the USSR
@@theredjoker8857 thanks
What tendency of Marxism do you belong to.
My sympathies to Lenin are a bit obvious probably. I am also obviously focusing on the Bolsheviks. I can't say the channel is non-ideological because that is not true, but I am shooting for a more neutral historical tone with a focus on the history of the Bolsheviks right now. I think even from Bolsheviks who I consider wrong there is things to learn, I don't agree with Lunacharsky and others whole god builder thing, but it is part of the tradition and history of Bolshevism and so I think its important for modern communists. June-July I started to associate more with Trotskyism, though I admit I can't stand 99% of Trotskyist groups, prior to that I was a Marxist-Leninist for 7ish years. I don't intend this channel to be an ideological crusade for myself, I plan to cover many Bolsheviks and their ideas and I hope to at least give them a fair shake or at the very least show why they thought that way. We will see if I can pull this off, but say I make a video that talks about some of the different Bolshevik opinions on National Liberation I would hope I could at least make people who are sympathetic to say Bukharin's position feel the video is fair even though personally I am in full agreement with Lenin on the issue and not Bukharin.
Uh hope this makes sense, maybe ill go back to the idea of explaining what my goals for this channel are.
@@InDefenseOfToucans thank you for explaining.
@@InDefenseOfToucans Kronstadt
@@InDefenseOfToucans you mostly align with trotskyist that is very cool comrade dont let secterians change your ideas
So the state under lower communism is not a dictatorship of the proletariat? What is the state under lower communism then?
The extent of the state under lower phase of communism is what is kept around for the enforcement of bourgeois law that remains. It is a sort of non-political state as classes have been abolished.
@@InDefenseOfToucans Oh alright yea that was my thinking too but I got kinda confused. I remember Lenin saying the state still existed despite society being classless and that the state can only whither away completely in higher communism.
I know you're attempting to come from an educational place here which I appreciate but its' deeply flawed. You are implying, without saying it, that Marx and/or Lenin see the dictatorship of the Proletariat as a 3rd distinct phase of socialism rather than the tool to bring about socialism and that argument hinges on him using communism and socialism interchangeably for the lower phase of communism (which he did) but not the higher phase (because he used socialism in a speech in 1921).
I am not implying that it is a third phase of socialism, I am implying DoTP is the transition period between Capitalism and Communism(both lower and higher phase)
@@InDefenseOfToucans that would be a third phase - DotP, lower phase, and higher phase - which neither Marx or Lenin said. Whether you think of it as a primer, precursor, phase, independent thing that exists between the lower and higher phase, that's still a third phase any way you cut it. In actuality DotP is the tool of transforming societies through the phases of socialism not a primer , precursor, or third phase
@@Davidscou how marx and lenin didnt talk about this both said that this phase would be neither capitalism or socialism and transitory it's like super clear they just didnt say that this is a 3rd phase but they say it is a phase surely
Great video! Yes! Lots of people say socialism is the Workers State which is just untrue and false.
"This is a “defect”, says Marx, but it is unavoidable in the first phase of communism; for if we are not to indulge in utopianism, we must not think that having overthrown capitalism people will at once learn to work for society without any rules of law. Besides, the abolition of capitalism does not immediately create the economic prerequisites for such a change.
Now, there are no other rules than those of "bourgeois law". To this extent, therefore, there still remains the need for a state, which, while safeguarding the common ownership of the means of production, would safeguard equality in labor and in the distribution of products.
The state withers away insofar as there are no longer any capitalists, any classes, and, consequently, no class can be suppressed.
But the state has not yet completely withered away, since the still remains the safeguarding of "bourgeois law", which sanctifies actual inequality. For the state to wither away completely, complete communism is necessary." - State and Revoultion
What exactly are you quoting at or arguing against?