Spicy question maybe, but I’m interested in your takes.

Personally, I think there’s some major issues with at least the terminology of the 2 phase model of lower/higher stage communism or socialism/communism as the terms are used in classical theory. Specifically the ‘lower stage’ or ‘socialism’ term is problematic.

In the age of revision and after the success of counterrevolution it has become clear that there is in fact a transitional phase leading up to the classical transitional phase. Societies did not jump from developed capitalism to socialism immediately and even the states that arguably did were forced to roll back some of the core tenets of ‘socialism’ as it is described in Marx, Engels and Lenin. Namely no private ownership of the means of production and no exploitation of man by man.

To ultras this just means countries following this path aren’t socialist. So then China isn’t, Cuba isn’t, no country still is really and those of us claiming they are then have to be revisionists. And to be fair, if you’re dogmatic you can make that point going from the source material. China itself recognizes this inconsistency, thus not seeing itself at the stage of socialism. Yet it’s a socialist state. But then what do we actually mean by ‘socialism’ when we use the term like this? Just a dictatorship of the proletariat? Any country in the process of building socialism?

That question comes up all the time and confuses the fuck out of people, because the term is either not applied consistently or as it’s defined is lacking. I think discourse in the communist movement and about AES would profit immensely if we had a more consistent definition or usage of the term or a better defined concept of what that transition to socialism is and how we should call it.

  • alekhine_alexander@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    Lafargue’s “the right to be lazy” enlarges on this. I read it long time ago so don’t remember his suggestion but the whole book is about your questions. Lafargue was Marx’s son in law btw.

    • ghostOfRoux();@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      This sounds really good thanks! I got it pulled up in my phone and will grab an epub of it tonight for my e-reader.

      From the wiki:

      In the book Lafargue proposes the right to be lazy, in contrast to the right to work, which he deems bourgeois.

      This definitely sounds like what I was wanting to explore. It’s just been heavy on my mind and I was pretty hopeful someone had written about it.

      I’m surprised I haven’t heard of Lafargue before. Thanks for the rec.