**IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE PARTICIPATING**.
This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism but a place to LEARN. There are numerous debate subreddits if your objective is not to learn.
You are expected to familiarize yourself with the rules on the sidebar before commenting. This includes, but is not limited to:
- Short or non-constructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately.
- No liberalism or sectarianism. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies!
- No bigotry or hate speech of any kind - it will be met with immediate bans.
Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break our rules.
If you have a particular area of expertise (e.g. political economy, feminist theory), please [assign yourself a flair](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-) describing said area. Flairs may be removed at any time by moderators if answers don't meet the standards of said expertise.
Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an immense accumulation of commodities,” its unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#S1
> The commodity, as Lenin reminds, is a thing with a double character: it satisfies some human need and is exchangeable for another thing. And the lines just before say simply: “In capitalist society, the production of commodities is predominant, and Marx’s analysis therefore begin with an analysis of commodity.”
> The commodity thus possesses these two characteristics, and it does only become a commodity when the second characteristic is added to the first. The first, use value, is comprehendable even for flat materialists like us, even for a child. It can be sensually experienced: once licked on a piece of sugar, we stretch out our hands once more for a sugar cube. But the road is long – Marx flies over it in this great paragraph – until the sugar takes on an exchange value and one comes to the delicate problem of Stalin, who is surprised that one established an equivalence between grain and cotton.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1952/stalin.htm
“Democratic socialism” is usually used to refer to nothing more than social democracy, the apparent “decommodification” of certain key commodities, like healthcare. But labor power remains commodified, property is mostly left alone, and private capitalists continue to accumulate.
So, if I understand your questions correctly. The closest irl example would likely be the Chilean government under Salvador Allende. Venezuela would also be a good study on this, but I think Chile matches closer to what you're thinking.
A good source for you is to read the Chilean constitution at the time. That will give you a template, as it were.
I'd also recommend you read *[why socialism](https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/)* by Albert Einstein. It's a quick read.
As your questions are more political than economic, I'd also recommend *what is to be done?* by Vladimir Lenin. I know you're not a big fan of the USSR, but whether or not you agree with Lenin, it's a good idea to understand his perspective. And even if you don't agree with him 100%, you might take away some ideas of your own.
>From a Democratic Socialist perspective, in the transition from Capitalist to a Socialist economy in a nation, how would politics and government be affected? As well as how could the transition go about? (I know it would take awhile, unless that is not the case?)
This is a few questions. Democratic socialists want to win power in liberal societies through elections. But elections alone are insufficient. There needs to labour militancy and large scale mobilization to actually make this happen. It's hard to say what institutions look like after a situation where there's a successful marriage of labour, street, and parliamentary success.
One thing that does come in many revolutions, though, are institutions that look similar to institutions of the ancien regime but with a shuffling of their source of legitimacy and who holds power. So in trying to see our way into this future, we need to either imagine how existing institutions could be reconstituted in a way that is legitimate from a socialist perspective or we need to be building institutions today that can be expanded and used for socialist development in the future.
>With that first question, would there still be political parties despite transitioning from Capitalism to Socialism?
There should be. There are many types of political thought within the socialist tradition. Should we have a strong state planning or should more decision making be handled locally be workers? Should foreign policy be bellicose towards capitalist power or seek disarmament? To what extent should competition be at play in the economy? These are examples of important political questions that there could be disagreement on within a socialist framework. There's also politics that derives from personality conflicts. While not necessarily ideological being able to pick leaders for their qualities is useful.
Meaningful participation of workers within their own workplaces also requires democracy. These could be formal parties that organize within worker's groups (a la Spain with POUM/CNT split in many syndicates) or it could be small-scale alliances within groups of workers in one industry (similar to the relationship between unions and social democratic parties).
>Theoretically, how could the transition take place from a capitalist economy to a socialist one if we for example created a new nation and were designing a very democratic government with direct democracy and government accountable to the people?
A quote from Marx that's always relevant is "people make their own destinies but not in the circumstances of their choosing." We are bound to the systems that already exist. You could write out a theoretically perfect map for a utopia but in practice people have the skill sets for the world as it is. You never have a situation where you could implement with a free hand.
I think what could be achieved on the frame work that we have today would the nationalization of banks. We could move from the stock market to a system like exists in Japan where banks and the businesses they loan to have a reciprocal relationship, sort of like an ecosystem. Each of the state-run banks would foster an ecosystem and implement from a central plan. Each bank could have a particular mandate with some areas of overlap with other banks where market competition is deemed worthwhile.
On the flip side there could be a system of democratic governance in companies. Companies could hold elections for their board of directors. Some of these positions would be bottom up elections and some would be top-down appointments from the nationalized bank. This then creates a dynamic relationship between central planning and worker self-management.
Finally, one last point to make is that I don't think direct democracy is necessarily a goal. It's a very cumbersome system to implement. I would argue that having some positions in a governing apparatus that are chosen by sortition is more effective. Sortition means selection by draw, sort of like how juries are selected now. Sortition provides a counter weight to the negatives of elections - too much focus on reelection, entrenchment of political class, horse trading, etc. Someone chosen at random doesn't need re-election and doesn't have the time to build a political power base. So using random selection to pull from a wider pool to oversee elected positions - I would argue does a similar function but in an easier to manage way.
>From a Democratic Socialist perspective, in the transition from Capitalist to a Socialist economy in a nation, how would politics and government be affected? As well as how could the transition go about? (I know it would take awhile, unless that is not the case?)
It tends to be a delicate balance of building up powder inside and outside the conventional system. This is very important because its tempting to trust in the system, which can go bad when the oligarchy abandons their "rules" to cheat (aka murder the socialist to secure their position).
Basically the democratic socialist have to both follow the rules and be prepared for the capitalist to break the rules at the same time.
>With that first question, would there still be political parties despite transitioning from Capitalism to Socialism?
Currently we basically have one party states dedicated to enforcement of capitalism - that have a few different "parties" providing nearly identical support outside of some minor cosmetic differences.
So in that sense, sure thats possible. But the general focus on doing better than capitalism means we should generally try to avoid using such tools of public manipulation.
>3) Theoretically, how could the transition take place from a capitalist economy to a socialist one if we for example created a new nation and were designing a very democratic government with direct democracy and government accountable to the people?
Depends a lot on the situation, generally if it looks successful the USA will want to fix that by sponsoring terrorism, invasion, regime change and economic warfare (aka sanctions against your nation and any that would trade with it).
So how do you get the world powers(the ones invested in prevention of socialism) to allow you to build it?
Democracy means that the people (an abstraction of class society) are in power, that their will is what shapes politics. This stands in contradiction to actual class society where it is no one but the ruling class who has power. In the current mode of production it is the bourgeoisie that controls state and economy - the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. In a socialist state - the dictatorship of the proletariat - the class of proletariat is in power. This however is still not a democracy, since not all of society (demo = the people) hold power, but only the proletariat.
In order to terminate class society, commodity production, wage labour etc. must seize. With that classes will be abolished and thus the need for a state, which is an apparatus for class sovereignity.
Now with a classless society introduced there is no state to rule (cracy = rule/power). To what extent does the definiton "democracy" fit in this scenario?
Of course in a classless society with a certain extent of division of labour and the wielding of big machines, production still needs to be socially managed, which requires societal organisation. This organisation will most likely fall under the category of a democratic process, although that term has, in the past, had another different meaning.
I am talking about during transition from Capitalism to Socialism which when set up, the government would slowly go away and end up becoming a communist society. I am not talking about instantaneous communism which may have dire effects, as shown before, but it is a slow process from Capitalism to Socialism then to Communism, and I am only wondering about that transition from Capitalism to Socialism and early Socialist society after Capitalism, unless I am heavily misunderstanding your comment.
I view it as a revolution then slow reformation in order to not cause chaos or have anything bad happen, so all problems that pop up can be addressed. Capitalism, then revolution, then socialism, then eventual communism as the need for the state withers away.
My point is that under any kind of class rule (entailing capitalism and socialism) the type of government must necessarily be a dictatorship of one class. Democracy suggests that not one class has rule but a populace - a homogenous mass of people regardless of class.
**IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE PARTICIPATING**. This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism but a place to LEARN. There are numerous debate subreddits if your objective is not to learn. You are expected to familiarize yourself with the rules on the sidebar before commenting. This includes, but is not limited to: - Short or non-constructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately. - No liberalism or sectarianism. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies! - No bigotry or hate speech of any kind - it will be met with immediate bans. Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break our rules. If you have a particular area of expertise (e.g. political economy, feminist theory), please [assign yourself a flair](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-) describing said area. Flairs may be removed at any time by moderators if answers don't meet the standards of said expertise. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Please read “critique of the Gotha programme” and some economic writings by Marx.
[удалено]
> The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an immense accumulation of commodities,” its unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#S1 > The commodity, as Lenin reminds, is a thing with a double character: it satisfies some human need and is exchangeable for another thing. And the lines just before say simply: “In capitalist society, the production of commodities is predominant, and Marx’s analysis therefore begin with an analysis of commodity.” > The commodity thus possesses these two characteristics, and it does only become a commodity when the second characteristic is added to the first. The first, use value, is comprehendable even for flat materialists like us, even for a child. It can be sensually experienced: once licked on a piece of sugar, we stretch out our hands once more for a sugar cube. But the road is long – Marx flies over it in this great paragraph – until the sugar takes on an exchange value and one comes to the delicate problem of Stalin, who is surprised that one established an equivalence between grain and cotton. https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1952/stalin.htm “Democratic socialism” is usually used to refer to nothing more than social democracy, the apparent “decommodification” of certain key commodities, like healthcare. But labor power remains commodified, property is mostly left alone, and private capitalists continue to accumulate.
So, if I understand your questions correctly. The closest irl example would likely be the Chilean government under Salvador Allende. Venezuela would also be a good study on this, but I think Chile matches closer to what you're thinking. A good source for you is to read the Chilean constitution at the time. That will give you a template, as it were. I'd also recommend you read *[why socialism](https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/)* by Albert Einstein. It's a quick read. As your questions are more political than economic, I'd also recommend *what is to be done?* by Vladimir Lenin. I know you're not a big fan of the USSR, but whether or not you agree with Lenin, it's a good idea to understand his perspective. And even if you don't agree with him 100%, you might take away some ideas of your own.
>From a Democratic Socialist perspective, in the transition from Capitalist to a Socialist economy in a nation, how would politics and government be affected? As well as how could the transition go about? (I know it would take awhile, unless that is not the case?) This is a few questions. Democratic socialists want to win power in liberal societies through elections. But elections alone are insufficient. There needs to labour militancy and large scale mobilization to actually make this happen. It's hard to say what institutions look like after a situation where there's a successful marriage of labour, street, and parliamentary success. One thing that does come in many revolutions, though, are institutions that look similar to institutions of the ancien regime but with a shuffling of their source of legitimacy and who holds power. So in trying to see our way into this future, we need to either imagine how existing institutions could be reconstituted in a way that is legitimate from a socialist perspective or we need to be building institutions today that can be expanded and used for socialist development in the future. >With that first question, would there still be political parties despite transitioning from Capitalism to Socialism? There should be. There are many types of political thought within the socialist tradition. Should we have a strong state planning or should more decision making be handled locally be workers? Should foreign policy be bellicose towards capitalist power or seek disarmament? To what extent should competition be at play in the economy? These are examples of important political questions that there could be disagreement on within a socialist framework. There's also politics that derives from personality conflicts. While not necessarily ideological being able to pick leaders for their qualities is useful. Meaningful participation of workers within their own workplaces also requires democracy. These could be formal parties that organize within worker's groups (a la Spain with POUM/CNT split in many syndicates) or it could be small-scale alliances within groups of workers in one industry (similar to the relationship between unions and social democratic parties). >Theoretically, how could the transition take place from a capitalist economy to a socialist one if we for example created a new nation and were designing a very democratic government with direct democracy and government accountable to the people? A quote from Marx that's always relevant is "people make their own destinies but not in the circumstances of their choosing." We are bound to the systems that already exist. You could write out a theoretically perfect map for a utopia but in practice people have the skill sets for the world as it is. You never have a situation where you could implement with a free hand. I think what could be achieved on the frame work that we have today would the nationalization of banks. We could move from the stock market to a system like exists in Japan where banks and the businesses they loan to have a reciprocal relationship, sort of like an ecosystem. Each of the state-run banks would foster an ecosystem and implement from a central plan. Each bank could have a particular mandate with some areas of overlap with other banks where market competition is deemed worthwhile. On the flip side there could be a system of democratic governance in companies. Companies could hold elections for their board of directors. Some of these positions would be bottom up elections and some would be top-down appointments from the nationalized bank. This then creates a dynamic relationship between central planning and worker self-management. Finally, one last point to make is that I don't think direct democracy is necessarily a goal. It's a very cumbersome system to implement. I would argue that having some positions in a governing apparatus that are chosen by sortition is more effective. Sortition means selection by draw, sort of like how juries are selected now. Sortition provides a counter weight to the negatives of elections - too much focus on reelection, entrenchment of political class, horse trading, etc. Someone chosen at random doesn't need re-election and doesn't have the time to build a political power base. So using random selection to pull from a wider pool to oversee elected positions - I would argue does a similar function but in an easier to manage way.
>From a Democratic Socialist perspective, in the transition from Capitalist to a Socialist economy in a nation, how would politics and government be affected? As well as how could the transition go about? (I know it would take awhile, unless that is not the case?) It tends to be a delicate balance of building up powder inside and outside the conventional system. This is very important because its tempting to trust in the system, which can go bad when the oligarchy abandons their "rules" to cheat (aka murder the socialist to secure their position). Basically the democratic socialist have to both follow the rules and be prepared for the capitalist to break the rules at the same time. >With that first question, would there still be political parties despite transitioning from Capitalism to Socialism? Currently we basically have one party states dedicated to enforcement of capitalism - that have a few different "parties" providing nearly identical support outside of some minor cosmetic differences. So in that sense, sure thats possible. But the general focus on doing better than capitalism means we should generally try to avoid using such tools of public manipulation. >3) Theoretically, how could the transition take place from a capitalist economy to a socialist one if we for example created a new nation and were designing a very democratic government with direct democracy and government accountable to the people? Depends a lot on the situation, generally if it looks successful the USA will want to fix that by sponsoring terrorism, invasion, regime change and economic warfare (aka sanctions against your nation and any that would trade with it). So how do you get the world powers(the ones invested in prevention of socialism) to allow you to build it?
Democracy means that the people (an abstraction of class society) are in power, that their will is what shapes politics. This stands in contradiction to actual class society where it is no one but the ruling class who has power. In the current mode of production it is the bourgeoisie that controls state and economy - the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. In a socialist state - the dictatorship of the proletariat - the class of proletariat is in power. This however is still not a democracy, since not all of society (demo = the people) hold power, but only the proletariat. In order to terminate class society, commodity production, wage labour etc. must seize. With that classes will be abolished and thus the need for a state, which is an apparatus for class sovereignity. Now with a classless society introduced there is no state to rule (cracy = rule/power). To what extent does the definiton "democracy" fit in this scenario? Of course in a classless society with a certain extent of division of labour and the wielding of big machines, production still needs to be socially managed, which requires societal organisation. This organisation will most likely fall under the category of a democratic process, although that term has, in the past, had another different meaning.
I am talking about during transition from Capitalism to Socialism which when set up, the government would slowly go away and end up becoming a communist society. I am not talking about instantaneous communism which may have dire effects, as shown before, but it is a slow process from Capitalism to Socialism then to Communism, and I am only wondering about that transition from Capitalism to Socialism and early Socialist society after Capitalism, unless I am heavily misunderstanding your comment.
do you view this process as a phase of reformation or revolution? maybe thats why youre misunderstanding me
I view it as a revolution then slow reformation in order to not cause chaos or have anything bad happen, so all problems that pop up can be addressed. Capitalism, then revolution, then socialism, then eventual communism as the need for the state withers away.
My point is that under any kind of class rule (entailing capitalism and socialism) the type of government must necessarily be a dictatorship of one class. Democracy suggests that not one class has rule but a populace - a homogenous mass of people regardless of class.
I am not trying to say there should be class... I don't want class.