Lenin cites this concept from Marx early in “State and Revolution.” To me, it implies that socialist states can be reformed from within to achieve communism, whereas under capitalism revolution is necessary to build socialism. I do not understand this at all. What makes post-capitalist society special in this respect? Am I misinterpreting something?

  • Soviet Snake
    link
    3
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    We need first to understand that socialism is equal to the dictatorship of the proletariat, and that communism is equal to a classless society.

    I think your question is why can communism can be achieved through “reformism” whereas socialism can’t. This has to do with dialectics and the qualitative change. It is also important to keep in mind that communism can’t be achieved only in one country, but it needs at the very least (from my point of view) to dominate most of the world in order to be achieved.

    We’d need to understand that the thesis would be a quantity in motion, upon it acts a force which is also another quantity which produces a change in the previous quantity, this results in a new quantity, which also posses a new quality. The qualitative change is the synthesis of first quantity (thesis) over which a new quantity acts upon (antithesis). A sheet of paper minus a part is still a sheet of paper, but shred it to pieces and it stops being a sheet of paper, it becomes something else. In the case of class struggle this qualitative change can be understood as capitalism (thesis), which is the first form of a quantity in motion, revolution (antithesis), which is another quantity that applies a force that can produce a change, and dictatorship of the proletariat (synthesis), which is a new quantity with a new quality.

    Reformism deals with the conditions of the current society and does not deal with the conditions that are to come. It deals with what is possible within the current society. It does not look at society from the perspective of what needs to change, it looks at society from the perspective of not changing anything and finding compromises.

    Moreover, the same dialectical process occurs in order to achieve a classless society, the only difference is you are now keeping in mind the international proletariat instead of the proletariat of one country. One country with a dictatorship of the proletariat can’t produce a change on its own in the grand scheme of things, but multiple changes produce a new quantity which also contains in itself a new quantity, the abolition of class in general.

    • Anna ☭🏳️‍⚧️
      link
      41 year ago

      Note that thesis, antithesis and synthesis were never developed nor theorised by Hegel or Marx. Not only that, it oversimplifies dialectics into rigid structures.

      • Soviet Snake
        link
        41 year ago

        AFAIK Hegel used other terms:

        a. abstract and intellectual (verständig)
        b. dialectical or negatively rational (negativvernünftig)
        c. speculative or positively rational (positivvernünfig)

        And while I generally agree with your take on rigid structures, I think it works better for a basic understanding of dialectics, it is worth noting also that for example the last step in a dialectical process can be the first step in another dialectical process.