Prussia-Steinbach wrote:Arkolon wrote:What's wrong with scientific socialism and a transition state? At least to me, those two things are the most sensical in all of communist theory.
Scientific socialism is taking political theory and philosophy and forcing it into a mathematical, scientific box it was never meant for. Not to mention the whole process draws false conclusions.
A transition state, most notably, never transitions. Bakunin correctly predicted that an attempt at transition from capitalism to socialism through a worker's state would lead to the State becoming a separate empowered class, just like in every other capitalist nation, and simply devolve into its own self-serving system.
Scientific socialism, as opposed to utopian socialism, stresses that socialism, class struggle, and class consciousness do not arise out of thin air, but come from the (what they saw to be) social contradictions of a new mode of production that came out of the industrial revolution. Utopian socialists see socialism as a nifty thing we can do any time; scientific socialists see it as either historically necessary or inevitable once the necessary conditions permit it. I also don't see how the conclusions scientific socialism can draw can be false when the purpose of having socialism be empirically based is to make its theory and conclusions falsifiable and flexible.
How does a country transform directly into the communist era within a globalised, capitalist economy without a transition state? How could such a radical shift in the very fabric of society be possible just through political motivation? A transition state facilitates the process and solves a hole utopian socialism has: by removing the transition state, the problem doesn't disappear, since the problem it meant to fix would remain gaping.
