- 24 Dec 2015 08:59
#14635346
Lenin disagrees.
Typical Trotskyite shite.
"State monopoly," claimed Lenin, "is a complete material preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of history between which and the rung called socialism there are no intermediate rungs".* In other words, the intervening variable between state capitalism and socialism is a political, not an economic, one.
* Lenin, The Impending Catastrophe and How To Combat It
State and Revolution, written in August–September 1917, defines socialism as the first, lower stage of communism, to be sharply distinguished from the subsequent stage of ‘complete communism’. The socialist economy would resemble capitalism to a surprising degree, in being organised along the lines of existing state capitalist syndicates and being modelled on the ordinary post office. In essence, for Lenin, communism’s first stage, socialism, represented no more than a modern, rationally organised industrial economy, nationalised and taken in hand by a revolutionary workers’ state.
Marx and Engels:
"All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia" Orwell
E l/r -10 : L/A -7.64
Engels wrote:It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.
Lenin disagrees.
Lenin, A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism: The Other Political Issues Raised and Distorted By P. Kievsky, October 1916 wrote:We recognise—and quite rightly—the predominance of the economic factor, but to interpret it a‘ la Kievsky is to make a caricature of Marxism. Even the trusts and banks of modern imperialism, though inevitable everywhere as part of developed capitalism, differ in their concrete aspects from country to country. There is a still greater difference, despite homogeneity in essentials, between political forms in the advanced imperialist countries—America, England, France, Germany. The same variety will manifest itself also in the path mankind will follow from the imperialism of today to the socialist revolution of tomorrow. All nations will arrive at socialism—this is inevitable, hut all will do so in not exactly the same way, each will contribute something of its own to some form of democracy, to some variety of the dictatorship of the proletariat, to the varying rate of socialist transformations in the different aspects of social life. There is nothing more primitive from the viewpoint of theory, or more ridiculous from that of practice, than to paint, “in the name of historical materialism”, this aspect of the future in a monotonous grey.
From the mouth of the man that demanded the Chinese communists subordinate themselves to Khang Khi Chek, who whisked them away to death camps; the man that opposed being too aggressive against the fascists in Germany to the point of the infamous Red Referendum; the man that made an alliance with the French bourgousie; the man that liquidated the revolutionaries in Spain in the name of stabilizing the Spanish bourgeoisie...
Typical Trotskyite shite.
Absolutely not. Which is why they were consistent in saying that Socialism in One Country is impossible
"State monopoly," claimed Lenin, "is a complete material preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of history between which and the rung called socialism there are no intermediate rungs".* In other words, the intervening variable between state capitalism and socialism is a political, not an economic, one.
* Lenin, The Impending Catastrophe and How To Combat It
Lenin, The Tax in Kind wrote:When the working class has learned how to defend the state system against the anarchy of small ownership, when it has learned to organise large-scale production on a national scale along state-capitalist lines, it will hold, if I may use the expression, all the trump cards, and the consolidation of socialism will be assured.
Lenin, The State and Revolution: The Marxist Theory of the State & the Tasks of the Proletariat in the Revolution wrote:A witty German Social Democrat of the seventies of the last century called the postal service an example of the socialist economic system. This is very true.
State and Revolution, written in August–September 1917, defines socialism as the first, lower stage of communism, to be sharply distinguished from the subsequent stage of ‘complete communism’. The socialist economy would resemble capitalism to a surprising degree, in being organised along the lines of existing state capitalist syndicates and being modelled on the ordinary post office. In essence, for Lenin, communism’s first stage, socialism, represented no more than a modern, rationally organised industrial economy, nationalised and taken in hand by a revolutionary workers’ state.
Marx and Engels:
Communist Manifesto wrote:The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
"All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia" Orwell
E l/r -10 : L/A -7.64