To Those Who Believe Marx Trumps Stalin

[Angst]

I just realized something today, from the limited knowledge I have about communism. I think I found a logical fallacy in Marx' arguments (Most people think they are plentiful, I know) and I'd like people to expand on my knowledge/discuss the subject. Especially the marxists in here, if present.

Marx was a materialist historian, and as such believed that the distribution of resources provoked progress; such as the conversion from feudalism to capitalism, where wealth was only present within a small elite, resulting in rebellion and revolution, redistributing wealth to the poor with force.

Communists usually argue that even with the failure of the Sovjet experiment, marxism is still a valid philosophy, as the Russians didn't follow the train of his thought; rather than going the determinist direction of ancient communism -> slavery -> feudalism -> capitalism -> socialism -> communism, they went directly from feudalism to socialism, completely screwing with the ideology. As such, marxism is "still valid".

Now, Marx argued that because of the great problems of his hypothetical capitalist dystopia, workers around the world would wake up, unite, and overthrow the capitalists due to poverty, hunger etc. That is, his logic with distribution of materials prevails; here, the balance of power would force the poor to rebel and revolt into a new state.

However, here's my issue. I think Marx stated that from the capitalist dystopia, the workers would found a new, authoritative state that would crush all remains of capitalism through controlled and even violent acquiring and distribution of all production, eventually vanishing, creating the international anarcho-communist utopia that he dreamt of.

If we assume that the course of history is provoked by unbalanced distribution of wealth (reactionary, note that), and that capitalism goes bozo, and that greed caused all of this, how can a totalitarian state suddenly willingly decide to vanish, losing all of its property? I don't see how that translates into his argument that history is run by the idea that materials run history - how can a group with control of all production choose to disintergrate when grand national revolutions or reforms happen when the revolting group has been surpressed for the last couple of centuries?

What am I getting wrong here? I'd like some critics from liberal CFCers as well if I got anything wrong. Also, I want Dachs to correct me as I'm probably wrong on the account of materialistic historism or what it's called.

Workers around the world, unite! and counterargue

 

[Racsoviale]

If we assume that the course of history is provoked by unbalanced distribution of wealth (reactionary, note that), and that capitalism goes bozo, and that greed caused all of this, how can a totalitarian state suddenly willingly decide to vanish, losing all of its property? I don't see how that translates into his argument that history is run by the idea that materials run history - how can a group with control of all production choose to disintergrate when grand national revolutions or reforms happen when the revolting group has been surpressed for the last couple of centuries?

It wouldnt be totalitarian

 

[Abaddon]

If you try an suppress a rebellion, it's only a matter of time before that builds and becomes a successful rebellion.

Are you saying that from the workers overthrowing capitalism and nationalising everything, there would not be the drive to true communism? Rampant corruption will be the catalyst that brings it down. If the nation embraces true communism, or turns back to capitalism however is a different thing.

Where is Cuba heading, where is china heading?

 

[Arwon]

I just realized something today, from the limited knowledge I have about communism. I think I found a logical fallacy in Marx' arguments (Most people think they are plentiful, I know) and I'd like people to expand on my knowledge/discuss the subject. Especially the marxists in here, if present.

Marx was a materialist historian, and as such believed that the distribution of resources provoked progress; such as the conversion from feudalism to capitalism, where wealth was only present within a small elite, resulting in rebellion and revolution, redistributing wealth to the poor with force.

Communists usually argue that even with the failure of the Sovjet experiment, marxism is still a valid philosophy, as the Russians didn't follow the train of his thought; rather than going the determinist direction of ancient communism -> slavery -> feudalism -> capitalism -> socialism -> communism, they went directly from feudalism to socialism, completely screwing with the ideology. As such, marxism is "still valid".

Now, Marx argued that because of the great problems of his hypothetical capitalist dystopia, workers around the world would wake up, unite, and overthrow the capitalists due to poverty, hunger etc. That is, his logic with distribution of materials prevails; here, the balance of power would force the poor to rebel and revolt into a new state.

However, here's my issue. I think Marx stated that from the capitalist dystopia, the workers would found a new, authoritative state that would crush all remains of capitalism through controlled and even violent acquiring and distribution of all production, eventually vanishing, creating the international anarcho-communist utopia that he dreamt of.

If we assume that the course of history is provoked by unbalanced distribution of wealth (reactionary, note that), and that capitalism goes bozo, and that greed caused all of this, how can a totalitarian state suddenly willingly decide to vanish, losing all of its property? I don't see how that translates into his argument that history is run by the idea that materials run history - how can a group with control of all production choose to disintergrate when grand national revolutions or reforms happen when the revolting group has been surpressed for the last couple of centuries?

What am I getting wrong here? I'd like some critics from liberal CFCers as well if I got anything wrong. Also, I want Dachs to correct me as I'm probably wrong on the account of materialistic historism or what it's called.

Workers around the world, unite! and counterargue

I think the idea was that superabundance would mean stuff wasn't worth fighting over any more, so the state (being made of people) won't need to violently retain power and resources because there is so much to go around.

 

[Munch]

If we assume that the course of history is provoked by unbalanced distribution of wealth (reactionary, note that), and that capitalism goes bozo, and that greed caused all of this, how can a totalitarian state suddenly willingly decide to vanish, losing all of its property? I don't see how that translates into his argument that history is run by the idea that materials run history - how can a group with control of all production choose to disintergrate when grand national revolutions or reforms happen when the revolting group has been surpressed for the last couple of centuries?

I think the idea was that superabundance would mean stuff wasn't worth fighting over any more, so the state (being made of people) won't need to violently retain power and resources because there is so much to go around.

Yes that's the issue. If the state acquires all the means of production, it still doesn't follow that the system is socialist. To be socialist, the means of production need to be in the hands of the people - I think that's the commonly agreed definition. The assumption in some cases is that the state is 'made of people', i.e. that it represents the will of the people, but if the state are a bunch of unaccountable, unelected autocrats, then it's just a 'top-down' economic system, presumably a dictatorship of some kind. If the state owning the means of production is to be socialist, then the state has to consist of, and be directly accountable to, the people, perhaps being governed by a hierarchical arrangement of councils (soviets) consisting of recallable delegates; in this way it is 'bottom-up'. In the Soviet Union, it could be said that the soviets were subverted to the whim of the ruling party (certainly under Stalin).

That's my relatively uninformed understanding anyway. As for how the hierarchy of soviets will 'wither away', I don't know. Maybe withering away is supposed to reflect the step of replacing a top-down state-run economy with a bottom-up democratic economy?

 

[Angst]

It wouldnt be totalitarian

How is it not?

If you try an suppress a rebellion, it's only a matter of time before that builds and becomes a successful rebellion.

Are you saying that from the workers overthrowing capitalism and nationalising everything, there would not be the drive to true communism? Rampant corruption will be the catalyst that brings it down. If the nation embraces true communism, or turns back to capitalism however is a different thing.

Where is Cuba heading, where is china heading?

Are you saying that Marx' argument was that the socialist state would simply be overthrown into communism? I thought Marx believed that socialism was a necessary lesser good, not a necessary evil.

Yes that's the issue. If the state acquires all the means of production, it still doesn't follow that the system is socialist. To be socialist, the means of production need to be in the hands of the people - I think that's the commonly agreed definition.

I think that when production is in the hands of the people only (That means, without a state), it's anarchy, not socialism. If the products are shared through the proletarian dictatorship, it's anarcho-communism, or what marxism talks about. Or am I wrong?

USSR considered themselves socialist, but promoted communism, since that's where they were going. AFAIK.

The assumption in some cases is that the state is 'made of people', i.e. that it represents the will of the people, but if the state are a bunch of unaccountable, unelected autocrats, then it's just a 'top-down' economic system, presumably a dictatorship of some kind. If the state owning the means of production is to be socialist, then the state has to consist of, and be directly accountable to, the people, perhaps being governed by a hierarchical arrangement of councils (soviets) consisting of recallable delegates; in this way it is 'bottom-up'. In the Soviet Union, it could be said that the soviets were subverted to the whim of the ruling party (certainly under Stalin).

(Reading on, I further understand your point about socialism.) So socialism means that the people own the means of production and uses the state to redistribute all of it? Actually, it makes sense... But what kind of force does Marx then argue the state has to clean up the remains after capitalism? Isn't control supposed to prevail? A socialist state from this definition would have no power to clean up remains after capitalism, from what I understand.

[quotte]That's my relatively uninformed understanding anyway. As for how the hierarchy of soviets will 'wither away', I don't know. Maybe withering away is supposed to reflect the step of replacing a top-down state-run economy with a bottom-up democratic economy?[/QUOTE]

That's exactly my point, though. I assumed socialism wanted to rule the means of production and distribute it accordingly, however remaining in control, in power, and would just throw that power away when the job had been done. If that is Marx' argument, it doesn't add up with his belief of history's continuum being driven by inequality, making underprivileged people revolt to destroy the position of the overprivileged. It doesn't add up when it goes the other way out of a sudden.

I think the idea was that superabundance would mean stuff wasn't worth fighting over any more, so the state (being made of people) won't need to violently retain power and resources because there is so much to go around.

If communism could happen, that's my only idea of it being possible. I actually think it is a reasonable suggestion of the future. But I don't believe in violent revolutions and I won't fight for communism, or act communist, or consider myself communist. I believe in social liberalism, at least in this period of my life. We would need superabundance first, and we don't have it yet. So, there.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

It should be noted that many of Marx's notions have been proven correct, in a roundabout way, through, among other things, anthropologic studies. Namely, that the form of government is often correlated to the volume and distribution of wealth and production in a given society. Observing the different types of societies throughout history, you will clearly see how distribution of power sharing correlates to distribution of wealth, from a small elite to a much larger populace. Implicit in this argument is that there must be a large surplus of production. Where Marx's argument seems to break down (and anyone may correct me if I'm wrong) is that he believes this progress to be inevitable. He seems to forget that the reason that production has increased over time is due to technological advances that have enabled greater unit production with the same quantity of labor. And that to sustain this broader power distribution tendency that he thinks he's seeing in history, even greater levels of production will be necessary.

Spoiler :

We are well aware that technology can make many laborious tasks easier, but even if you look at more primitive inventions, you can see just as dramatic results. For example, the invention of the shoulder horse harness in the early Middle Ages allowed for faster and more efficient plowing, thereby increasing agricultural yield. The previous harness was tied to the horse's neck, causing it to choke when it pulled too heavy a weight, and it required frequent rest. Still later, the invention of the tractor improved this feature still more.

Communists usually argue that even with the failure of the Sovjet experiment, marxism is still a valid philosophy, as the Russians didn't follow the train of his thought; rather than going the determinist direction of ancient communism -> slavery -> feudalism -> capitalism -> socialism -> communism, they went directly from feudalism to socialism, completely screwing with the ideology. As such, marxism is "still valid".

I see a couple of flaws in this reasoning. One is that stages don't really matter when it comes to establishing an economic system -- only the quantity of production. In fact, we have seen plenty of times, in history, where regressions to a less productive form of economy happen, such as when Europe went from a capitalist economy to a feudal economy after Rome's fall. This happened because the economy of the time became less productive. Another is the confusion over "ancient communism" with a hunter-gatherer society. What many communists seem to forget is that the reason that hunter-gatherer societies are so egalitarian is because their society lacks surplus, and so for them, their only choices for survival are mutual cooperation or everyone for themselves. It is also, for this reason, that these societies usually either lack leadership or if they do, it is fleeting. Since no one person or group can claim superiority in productivity, none have a coercive monopoly on power. That's hardly the idealistic egalitarian society that communists propose, which, at least would have surplus that is somehow shared. There will also always be unequal distribution of wealth in every society because every society, besides a hunter-gatherer, produces a surplus, and this leads to some having possession of more productivity than others. Even if you suggest a more equitable distribution, someone will have to do that, and that implies leadership. It does not happen spontaneously, as the natural tendency of humanity is to horde. That's why the statement "for everyone according to his ability, to everyone according to his means" makes no sense, because someone has to be a judge of these.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I just realized something today, from the limited knowledge I have about communism. I think I found a logical fallacy in Marx' arguments (Most people think they are plentiful, I know) and I'd like people to expand on my knowledge/discuss the subject. Especially the marxists in here, if present.

Marx was a materialist historian, and as such believed that the distribution of resources provoked progress; such as the conversion from feudalism to capitalism, where wealth was only present within a small elite, resulting in rebellion and revolution, redistributing wealth to the poor with force.

Not necessarily with force, but that the nature of the economic systems would change the shape of the political landscape, such that the capitalists were the ones who eventually acquired more and more power, and the old elite, the landed aristocracy, would go out of vogue. That liberalism paralleled this development was fortunate for us, but I think somewhat necessary also, since these developments necessitated taking economic (and thus political) power from one person or a very few (the king and his court) and distributing it among many (basically any entrepreneur who founds a business). Socialism is probably best understood as a step still further in this department, taking economic [political] power and democratizing even more, such that all workers have a say in things. Doing so will necessarily change the political landscape further, and the capitalists will lose their political-economic power base and go the way of dukes and barons.

The big fuzzy ending to all that is that Marx said that because capitalism divides us into the workers and the worked so clearly into two groups, that when one triumphs the other will be absorbed, and political-economic classes will disappear entirely. Since he identified all social struggles as being based on class conflict, he predicted that when this state of events came about, wars and the like would end, and we would all become one big happy family, soldiering forth into the future together.

I don't know if I really agree that the last paragraph is likely, but even if it isn't, I think it still worth our time to struggle for.

Communists usually argue that even with the failure of the Sovjet experiment, marxism is still a valid philosophy, as the Russians didn't follow the train of his thought; rather than going the determinist direction of ancient communism -> slavery -> feudalism -> capitalism -> socialism -> communism, they went directly from feudalism to socialism, completely screwing with the ideology. As such, marxism is "still valid".

Well that's a big part of it. But also the slip-ups the Bolsheviks made. They were in many ways a trial run for Marxism on a large scale; sometimes trial runs work the first time (like liberalism and the Glorious Revolution) and sometimes they don't (like in the French Revolution), and lessons need to be drawn from it. But the failure of the French Revolution did not disqualify liberalism as an ideology, and the Russian Revolution's ultimate failure, 80 years removed, does not disqualify socialism as an ideology either, even if Russia had been industrialized and liberal beforehand.

Now, Marx argued that because of the great problems of his hypothetical capitalist dystopia, workers around the world would wake up, unite, and overthrow the capitalists due to poverty, hunger etc. That is, his logic with distribution of materials prevails; here, the balance of power would force the poor to rebel and revolt into a new state.

However, here's my issue. I think Marx stated that from the capitalist dystopia, the workers would found a new, authoritative state that would crush all remains of capitalism through controlled and even violent acquiring and distribution of all production, eventually vanishing, creating the international anarcho-communist utopia that he dreamt of.

This is demonstrably false, and I think I know where the misunderstanding comes from. It is a curse for us that he chose to refer to possessing power as a "dictatorship." He referred to the time of proletarian takeover as the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat," but he did not mean it in the sense that we do, which is singularly-exercised despotism. He meant it, rather, as the state of affairs in which the proletarians control power; he referred to the capitalist time as being the "Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie," though he obviously did not think that a liberal democracy was a dictatorship. In fact, he identified the countries with lengthy democratic histories, specifically Britain, Holland, and the United States, as being places where the proletariat might be able to seize the ship of state through democratic methods, with no Paris Commune-like revolution at all! Though it is certain that he would have endorsed revolution if it came to that.

To really see what he expected, read his pamphlet called The Paris Commune,
we are most fortunate to have had such an event happen during Marx's life, because he essentially points at it and says "See that? THAT'S what I'm talking about! That's it! Do that!" Though he obviously didn't mean the failure and subsequent mass execution by the reactionary government after it puts down your revolution.

If we assume that the course of history is provoked by unbalanced distribution of wealth (reactionary, note that), and that capitalism goes bozo, and that greed caused all of this, how can a totalitarian state suddenly willingly decide to vanish, losing all of its property? I don't see how that translates into his argument that history is run by the idea that materials run history - how can a group with control of all production choose to disintergrate when grand national revolutions or reforms happen when the revolting group has been surpressed for the last couple of centuries?

What am I getting wrong here? I'd like some critics from liberal CFCers as well if I got anything wrong. Also, I want Dachs to correct me as I'm probably wrong on the account of materialistic historism or what it's called.

I hope I have shed some light on things for you, so that you see why communists are not trying to make some kind of monolithic super-government to lord over us all, like conservatives would have you believe.

Workers around the world, unite! and counterargue

 

[Gigaz]

However, here's my issue. I think Marx stated that from the capitalist dystopia, the workers would found a new, authoritative state that would crush all remains of capitalism through controlled and even violent acquiring and distribution of all production, eventually vanishing, creating the international anarcho-communist utopia that he dreamt of.

If we assume that the course of history is provoked by unbalanced distribution of wealth (reactionary, note that), and that capitalism goes bozo, and that greed caused all of this, how can a totalitarian state suddenly willingly decide to vanish, losing all of its property? I don't see how that translates into his argument that history is run by the idea that materials run history - how can a group with control of all production choose to disintergrate when grand national revolutions or reforms happen when the revolting group has been surpressed for the last couple of centuries?

What am I getting wrong here? I'd like some critics from liberal CFCers as well if I got anything wrong. Also, I want Dachs to correct me as I'm probably wrong on the account of materialistic historism or what it's called.

Workers around the world, unite! and counterargue

Marx considered mans desire for wealth, but not his desire for power. While we describe the economy of the Sowjet Union with the term state property, they themselves considered it to be property of the people. When the authoritative state crushes all remains of capitalism, other classes are being absorbed by the proletariat and cease to exist. The totalitarian state reaches an equilibrium where everyone has the same power.

 

[Angst]

All of you have given me a lot to chew on, and I don't really have any counterarguments. (This thread is based upon my initial interpretation, and I wanted to expand on that knowledge, not convince people of anything.) Possibly, I'll add some questions in a few hours in a double post, if this thread doesn't get any more replies.

Please continue to enlighten me. I don't believe in communism, but Marx' theories are indeed interesting, and some of them quite valid. (I happen to support the idea of materialistic historism or what it's called in English for example.)

That said, again: Thank you, I probably have some questions in a few hours.

 

[innonimatu]

It wouldnt be totalitarian

This. If the "dictatorship of the proletariat" ends the material control of wealth by a small class, that class vanishes. All which remains then is the proletariat - it's not just a "dictatorship" (which didn't had the same meaning it has today), it's control by a "group" which will then be the sole social group. And as the material control of wealth by a small class has always been anchored in their political power over the state (state power is what secures the accumulation of wealth), the democratic takeover of power by the proletariat in those industrial countries where it was a clear majority should eventually put an end to capitalism...

That the state bureaucracy might form a social group by itself and pursue its own goals apart from those of the proletariat was not expected, as Marx viewed ownership of wealth as the force conditioning social differences. Personally, I'm more concerned with power, wealth being one means to, or (now more often) a reward of, power. It's not clear that focusing attention just on the distribution of wealth is enough to bring about any form of communist society. But the popular message of marxism has been associated with that.

There is one redeeming historical fact for Marx's assumption that a self-proclaimed socialist state would dissolve itself - the USSR, that "evil empire" of baby-eating commies" did abolish itself - only not into what it was supposed to! Not that this prevents some people from even now claiming that it was a never-ending totalitarian nightmare.

 

[Traitorfish]

Communists usually argue that even with the failure of the Sovjet experiment, marxism is still a valid philosophy, as the Russians didn't follow the train of his thought; rather than going the determinist direction of ancient communism -> slavery -> feudalism -> capitalism -> socialism -> communism, they went directly from feudalism to socialism, completely screwing with the ideology. As such, marxism is "still valid".

That's something of an over-simplification; Leninism did not argue that capitalism could be "skipped", as such, but that a centralised state could accelerate a nation through the capitalist stage with greater efficiency and less suffering than if events were allowed to take their course. Lenin himself referred to the New Economic Plan as a form of capitalism, arguing that socialism required a concious proletariat, which could not spring directly from feudalism. The Bolsheviks intended to foster and expand the small urban proletariat, eventually dissolving the peasantry through a process of industrialisation which would reduce the manpower demanded by agriculture and so allow the emergence of a proleteriat that is both industrial and agricultural.
The typical criticism is that the Soviet Union failed because it stalled on the capitalism part, for a variety of reasons, allowing a new rule class (some would argue caste) to emerge in the form of the pseudo-bourgeois nomenklatura and so failing to create the worker's state envisioned by Lenin. Whether this is held to be an example of "state capitalism" or a "degenerated workers state" depends on the school of criticism; typically, anarchists and libertarian socialists argue the former, Trotskyists the latter.

At least, this is my understanding. I'm sure that Cheezy can correct me if I've gone off the rails at any point.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

That's something of an over-simplification; Leninism did not argue that capitalism could be "skipped", as such, but that a centralised state could accelerate a nation through the capitalist stage with greater efficiency and less suffering than if events were allowed to take their course. Lenin himself referred to the New Economic Plan as a form of capitalism, arguing that socialism required a concious proletariat, which could not spring directly from feudalism. The Bolsheviks intended to foster and expand the small urban proletariat, eventually dissolving the peasantry through a process of industrialisation which would reduce the manpower demanded by agriculture and so allow the emergence of a proleteriat that is both industrial and agricultural.
The typical criticism is that the Soviet Union failed because it stalled on the capitalism part, for a variety of reasons, allowing a new rule class (some would argue caste) to emerge in the form of the pseudo-bourgeois nomenklatura and so failing to create the worker's state envisioned by Lenin. Whether this is held to be an example of "state capitalism" or a "degenerated workers state" depends on the school of criticism; typically, anarchists and libertarian socialists argue the former, Trotskyists the latter.

At least, this is my understanding. I'm sure that Cheezy can correct me if I've gone off the rails at any point.

You are correct. The great irony being that after April 1917, the Bolsheviks went down a heavily Trotskyist path by rejecting the Provisional Government. Leninism after this time became very heavily Trotskyist as well, as you can see from your own analysis of the NEP. In his own way, Stalin stole many ideas from Trotsky as well, though he improperly put them into practice. The whole idea that Russia could be accelerated through the capitalist phase, either in NEP or FYP form, is the Permanent Revolution.

Trots somehow fail to play this card because they fear even slight associations with Stalin as a slug does salt, and Marxist-Leninists won't acknowledge their ideological debt to Trotsky because they can't stand to think the core of their philosophy is a radical departure from Marxism.

 

[Angst]

What does Trotsky stand for exactly? I am understood that he had views that clashed with marxism. How is this true? What did he believe in? - Weren't he one of the guys who believed in a slow, peaceful, democratic reform into communism? Or am I way off?

 

[civver_764]

Trotsky was supposedly more in favor of democracy than others in the party like Stalin, whether or not he would've implemented those things while in power is anyone's guess. I think in general he's just seen as the good guy(relative to the Stalinists). I wouldn't want to live under a Trotskyist government though.

And yeah Lenin wasn't trying to skip capitalism, he was just trying out a "state" version of it. I think it may have had some success if things went differently. Lenin did a lot of questionable things though.

 

[aelf]

I just realized something today, from the limited knowledge I have about communism. I think I found a logical fallacy in Marx' arguments (Most people think they are plentiful, I know) and I'd like people to expand on my knowledge/discuss the subject. Especially the marxists in here, if present.

Marx was a materialist historian, and as such believed that the distribution of resources provoked progress; such as the conversion from feudalism to capitalism, where wealth was only present within a small elite, resulting in rebellion and revolution, redistributing wealth to the poor with force.

Nope. I believe that's not accurate. Progress in methods of production calls for a change in the relations of production. Marx cites the rise of capitalism as evidence, as it had created a new social dynamic that hinges around the relationship between the capitalist class and the proletariat, a revolution from the medieval system of feudal lords and serfs. In the same way, increasing industrialisation would demand another change as the means of production would increasingly be concentrated in the hands of a few, thereby tipping the balance, so to speak, as more and more people feel that they have lost control over their own labour.

On that note, I believe that what the distribution of wealth is like is not as important as how wealth is distributed at all. This seems easy enough to understand, since the distribution of resources is a question that is quite distinct from the relations of production (e.g. you could have capitalist countries with varying levels of equality but essentially the same relations of production).

So my understanding is that it is the exploitation inherent in the relationship between capitalist bosses and their workers that would drive the latter to demand change. Of course, for that to happen the workers need to be aware of it and to have the capability to organise themselves as a collective force. This is where some major problems arise. Should the workers never attain an effective revolutionary consciousness, revolution cannot happen. Hence certain people's preference for having an intellectual vanguard to lead the way. That path, however, is fraught with dangers, to which history can perhaps attest.

Anyway, in that sense, revolution is not about the distribution of resources as much as about pressure on old social dynamics. Marx did believe that revolution would lead to greater equality, but that is more directly to do with the democratisation of production that comes in the wake of revolution. When people have more influence over how production is organised in their society, they could reasonably be expected to arrange it in a way that would bring the greatest benefit to each of them.

That's what I can say with any certainty anyway. I'm better with Marx's analysis of relations of production than with the futurist aspects of dialectical materialism.

 

[aelf]

And, oh, I'd say that dialectical materialism is so termed because Marx was a Young Hegelian. Hegel believed in dialectical idealism, i.e. that the realm of ideas is the basis for the physical/material conditions of society. With new ideas come new eras that herald social change.

Marx holds a similar belief, except it's the opposite: The physical/material conditions of society are the basis for the prevailing ideas of the time. Hence the ideas of the day are the ideas of the ruling class. Whoever controls the very basis of our existence, the material resources needed to sustain our lives as we know them, controls the ideas that society holds.

But, of course, Marxism has developed since then and the original idea of economic base and ideological superstructure has been disputed (not that it's completely wrong, just not so simple). Which seems natural enough given that for revolution to be sparked there needs to be a lot of ideological warfare that would be extremely difficult from the point of view of the original theory.

 

[Traitorfish]

Anyway, in that sense, revolution is not about the distribution of resources as much as about pressure on old social dynamics. Marx did believe that revolution would lead to greater equality, but that is more directly to do with the democratisation of production that comes in the wake of revolution. When people have more influence over how production is organised in their society, they could reasonably be expected to arrange it in a way that would bring the greatest benefit to each of them.

This is key. Marxism, as well as most properly developed forms of socialism, are primarily concerned with altering the relationship between the productive classes and the means of production, rather than altering the methods of distribution. That's why socialist thinkers like Marx spend so much of their time dealing with the alienation which results from capitalism, with the right of the worker to control the product of their labour, and with the idea of class as defined by relationship to the means of production, and not merely by wealth and social status.
Contrast this with socialism liberalism, which does not seek to alter- indeed, often seeks to preserve- the capitalist system, but to alter the end result that the system generates; Obama's healthcare bill, for example, sought to lessen the material inequality which resulted from capitalism, but did not seek to threaten capitalism itself. The effects of exploitation is lessened, but the exploitative relationship is not overturned, and so it cannot, by any reasonable measure, be thought of as socialistic.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

What does Trotsky stand for exactly? I am understood that he had views that clashed with marxism. How is this true? What did he believe in? - Weren't he one of the guys who believed in a slow, peaceful, democratic reform into communism? Or am I way off?

Trotsky's ideas have already been spelled out in this thread, the name was simply not given to them.

As we know, Marx believed in the progression of society along the path you have described, which prescribes that capitalism will lead to socialism. Trotsky sought to adapt this to more backwards societies (like Russia) that were not on the social envelope like Western Europe and the US were. According to his Theory of the Permanent Revolution, capitalists in these backwards societies could not develop the advanced sort of capitalism necessary to create the class divide so strong that it would drive the proletariat to revolution, it would be stuck in the state that, well, most Third World countries are today: lagging behind, perpetually exploited and taken advantage of by the leading imperial powers, and generally hamstrung in the development of domestic industry. Thus, the proletariat that does exist must ally itself with other oppressed classes, like the peasantry.

Because of this social lameness, the bourgeoisie, which had been behind the drive towards liberal democracy in the West, could not, and more importantly, would not create that sort of thing in a state like Russia. Thus, when the proletariat and peasantry together seize power, they will be responsible for both the liberal and socialist revolutions, which would make it "permanent."

This goes hand in hand with the need to carry the revolution against the imperial powers, hopefully stirring up their proletarians to join them, and if not, invading and liberating them anyway, because isolated, the revolution was likely to be fizzled out because the capitalist powers would gang up on it and squash it, like the monarchial powers tried to do to Revolutionary France.

How much of this parallels Russian history and thought should be apparent. How much of it ceased to be applicable after 1924 should also be apparent.

And yeah Lenin wasn't trying to skip capitalism, he was just trying out a "state" version of it.

No, not at all.

I think it may have had some success if things went differently. Lenin did a lot of questionable things though.

I would ask what, but I know that this is not the thread for it, and that starting a new thread would be a troll magnet.

 

[Angst]

Actually, I want to know about Lenin. Many idealists believe that he was much more of a visionary than Stalin, and that things would have gone differently if he had been the leader. How come? How were his policies different from Stalin? I think I'm told that Stalin is a lot more authoritarian.