I - Introduction
II - Socialism
III - Communism

Introduction

We have said in the beginning of this book that economic creed means a particular way of life that is the basis of organizing the social existence, as the best plan that facilitate material abundance and wellbeing in the economic domain. As for economic sciences, they are organized studies in respect of the real laws, which govern the society in so far as its economic life is concerned.

So the creed is the work plan and the mission while the science is the discovery or an effort to discover the reality and laws governing the reality. That is why the creed is an effective element and factor for formation and development. But the science records economic events objectively, without any sentiment and bias.

It is on this basis we have differentiated between historical materialism and the Marxian creed, in our study of Marxism. Historical materialism that we dealt with in the first part of our discussion is the science relating to the laws of production, its growth, development and its social results in different economic, political and ideological fields.

In other words, it is the science of the Marxian economics, which gives economic explanation of the entire history in light of productive forces. The Marxian creed is the social system that Marxism calls for and asserts that its practice would lead humanity. Thus the position of Marxism with regard to historical materialism is similar to that of a physicist vis-à-vis the laws of physics. Marxism occupies the position of announcing good news and invitation, calling for the embrace of its creed.

In spite of being two different aspects - one as the science and the other as the creed - the link between historical materialism and doctrinal Marxism is very strong. It is such because the doctrine Marxism preaches is in reality a legal expression and a legislative form of a particular stage of historical materialism. It is also a limited part of the general historical path imposed by the movement of the growing production, its laws and its contradictions.

Thus when Marxism puts on the robes of doctrinal motive it thereby simply expresses the historical reality of those laws. It looks at it as the invitation to enforce the will of history and the materialization of the demands of the economic factor that is today leading the human caravan towards a new stage, one in which the plans of the Marxian doctrine are embodied. It was for this reason that Marx used to give his doctrine the name ‘scientific socialism’ to distinguish it from other types of socialism, which Marx claimed were merely expressions of personal ideas and sentiments of their respective champions, instead of historical laws and necessity. In his view, these doctrines were formed without consideration of the scientific study and explanation with respect to the productive forces and their development.

Marxism demands two stages to materialize successively from its doctrinal aspect, and also stresses their historical need, from its science aspect1. These stages are socialism and then communism. From the point of view of historical materialism, the communist stage is regarded as the highest stage of human development because at this stage, history accomplishes its greatest miracle and the means of production have their decisive say.

The socialist stage comes to immediately replace capitalism upon the dissolution of the capitalistic society. To the Marxists, socialism expresses on the one hand the inevitable historical revolution against capitalism by cutting it short. On the other hand it is considered as an essential condition to bring about the communist society and steering the ship to the shore of history.

What Is Socialism And Communism?

Each of the two stages, Socialism and Communism, has its own signposts, which distinguishes it from the other. The main signposts and pillars of the socialist stage are briefly described below:

First, eradicating classism and neutralizing it by the eventual establishment of a classless society.

Second, acceptance of proletarian rule as a political mechanism by establishing a dictatorship2 of the proletariat having the competence to bring the historical message of the socialist society into reality.

Third, nationalization of the resources, wealth and capital goods or the means of production in the country. Their owners earlier used these for exploitation through waged labour, and are now regarded common properties under collective ownership.

Fourth, arranging the distribution on the principle of "from each according to his ability and to each according to his contribution".

When the human caravan reaches the height of history or the stage of real communism, most of these signposts and pillars undergo development and change. Communism reinstates the first pillar of socialism that is the eradication of classism, while disposing off the other pillars. As for the second pillar, communism eventually puts an end to governments and politics on the stage of history, since it deals a deathblow to the proletarian government and liberates the society from the clutches of the government and its restrictions.

Communism does not stop at nationalizing the capital goods or the means of production (the third pillar of socialism). Instead, it goes further by abolishing private ownership of all means of production at the individual level. These are those capital goods the individual owner exploits himself, without using waged labour. Similarly, it disallows private ownership of consumer goods and market-driven prices.

To be more exact, communism completely abolishes private ownership in both areas - production and consumption. Similarly, it brings about a decisive change in the principle on which the distribution is based under the fourth pillar of socialism - from each according to his ability and to each according to his contribution – to a new distribution principle of “from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs”.

This is the Marxian doctrine in both of its stages, socialism and communism. There are obviously three ways to study any doctrine. First, criticism of the theoretical principles and premises the doctrine is based on. Second, study of the extent of the applicability of these principles to the doctrine. Third, discussion of the essential idea of the doctrine with regards to its applicability and whether the idea was objective or otherwise. In our study of the Marxian doctrine we are going to adopt all these three.

General Criticism Of The Doctrine

From the beginning of our study of doctrinal Marxism, in light of the aforementioned methods, we face the most important and serious question in the discussions of doctrinal aspects. That is the question about the premise of the doctrine and that which constitute its mission and argues for its adoption and implementation in human societies.

In justifying socialism and communism, Marx certainly does not rely on particular value system or concept of equality, as do other socialists. He describes them as imaginists because in his opinion, moral values and their meanings are simply the outcome of economic factors and social condition of the productive forces. There is no sense, therefore, in making a call for social condition on a purely moral basis.

Marx only relies on the laws of historical materialism, which explains the movement of history in light of the development of a variety of productive forces. Thus he considers these laws as the scientific basis of history and as the force that brings about its successive stages at determined intervals, in accordance with the productive forces and the prevailing social form.

In this light he finds that socialism is an inevitable result of these laws that operate decisively towards changing the last stage of the stage - that is the capitalism - to a classless social formation. As for the issue of how the Marxian laws of historical materialism work to abolish capitalism, we have seen before how Marx explained this in his analytical discussions of the capitalist economics. In his analysis, Marx tried to discover the fundamental inconsistencies, which lead capitalism to its demise - according to the laws of historical materialism - and carry humanity to the socialist stage.

In short, according to Marx, the laws of historical materialism constitute the general principle for all stages of history. The analytical premises in the Marxian economics – such as the law of value and the concept of surplus value - apply those principles to the capitalist stage of history. The doctrinal socialism is the necessary result of this application and a doctrinal expression of the inevitable historical course of capitalism as imposed by the general laws of history.

In our broad discussion of historical materialism, with its laws and stages, we arrived at results that are different from those concluded by Marxism. We have seen clearly that the historical reality of humanity does not march with the procession of historical materialism. Nor is its social arrangement determined by the condition of the productive forces and their inconsistencies and laws.

We also realized from our study of the laws of the Marxian economics, the mistake of Marxism in the analytical bases used to explain the inconsistencies in capitalism from various aspects and its continuous march towards its inevitable end. All those inconsistencies centered on the Marxist law of value and the concept of surplus value. Consequently with the collapse of these two props, the entire edifice would fall.

Even if we suppose that Marxism was right in its analytical study of the capitalist economics, such studies only discloses the forces and conflicts that cause a slow and gradual death of capitalism. They do not prove that Marxist socialism was the only substitute for capitalism in the historical course of development.

In fact they pave the way for numerous economic forms to occupy the place of capitalism in the society, be it Marxist socialism - like state socialism or any of its variants. It can also be a dual economy – different forms of ownership, or redistribution of wealth among the citizens within the framework of private ownership and others - that could manage the flaws of capitalism without having to resort to Marxist socialism.

In this way, doctrinal Marxism loses its scientific evidence and is no longer a historical necessity as deduced from the laws of historical materialism and the Marxian principles about history and economy. Once the doctrinal idea takes off its scientific garb, it remains at the same level as other doctrinal suggestions.

Socialism

Let us now study in some details the main elements and signposts of socialism. The first element is the eradication of the social division into classes. This puts an end to different types of struggles the human history is replete with, since the cause of those types of class struggle is those conflicts that resulted from dividing the society into the owners and workers.

Consequently, when socialism come into being and transformed the society into one single class, there is no longer any class conflict. All the forms of struggle disappeared, and harmony and peace prevail permanently. The idea in this is based on the viewpoints of historical materialism, which states that the economic factor is the only factor in the life of the society. This opinion has led Marxism into saying that it is the condition of private ownership, which divides the society into owners and workers, is the actual basis of the class division in the society.

But in view of the conflicts and the struggle that result from this social division, and as the socialist society limits private ownership and nationalizes the means of production, the historical basis for the division of society into classes is destroyed. It thus becomes impossible for the class division to remain its existence after the disappearance of the economic conditions it rests on.

But we know from our study of historical materialism that the economic factors and the condition of private ownership are not the only basis of all the social configurations (and the class divisions) that occur in history. They could be the outcome of military, political or religious factors, as we have seen before. Therefore, it is not a historical necessity that a class-based society should disappear with the end of private ownership. It is possible that a similar class-based society develops in the socialist society because of other factors.

While analyzing the socialist state, we have found that because of its economic and political nature, it leads to the creation of a new version of class conflict after the elimination of the earlier form of class-based division. We knew that the economic scenario under the socialist stage is based on the distribution principle of “from each according his ability, and for each according to his contribution”. We shall soon see how this principle leads to the creation of new contradictions and divisions in the society. Let us now discuss and examine the political nature of socialism.

The basic condition for the socialistic revolution is that it should materialize at the hands of revolutionaries and intellectuals taking its leadership, because it is not reasonable that the Proletarian with all its elements should lead the revolution and the direction of the movement. The revolutionary movement must be carried on under the shadow of their leadership and direction. That is why Lenin stressed - after the failure of the revolution of (1905) - that only the professional revolutionaries could form a party of the Bolshevik type.

Thus we find that the revolutionary leadership of the working class was the natural privilege of those who call themselves ‘professional revolutionaries’ in the same way the revolutionary leadership of the farmers and the workers during the earlier revolutions was held by persons who were not from them. There was one difference between the two and it is that the distinction of leadership in the socialist stage does not represent economic influence. It takes place only out of ideological, revolutionary and party peculiarities.

This revolutionary and party colour constituted a veil on the socialist experiment that Eastern Europe had. It concealed the reality from the people so that they ostensibly did not dispute that revolutionary leadership of the socialist movement, a seed of what Marxism describes as historically the worst form of social division into classes.

Marxism is of the view that this leadership must have absolute authority in the socialist stage, and considers it necessary to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat and centralized absolute authority to finally end capitalism. Lenin described the nature of the powers under the system of the party that has the real authority in the country during the revolution, saying:

It is not possible for a Communist Party, in the present case of an acute civil war, to discharge its duty unless when it is organized in an extremely centralized fashion and controlled by a strict system similar to the military order, and when its central apparatus is robust and dominant enjoying broad authority and full confidence of the members of the party.

Stalin added:

"This is the situation with regard to the system of the party during the period of the struggle preceding the materialization of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the same must be said, even to a greater degree, about the system of the party after the dictatorship had materialized."

Therefore, the socialist movement is particularly distinct from other revolutionary movements in that it is obliged - in the opinion of its magnates - to continue following the revolutionary way and the system of absolute government - within the party and outside it - with a view to creating new socialist man, free from the ills of the class-based societies and their abusive tendency in which humanity has lived for thousands of years. Thus it becomes necessary that the revolutionaries - leaders and those who circle in their party orbit - should wield the unlimited authority so that they could work out a miracle and develop the new man.

When we reach this stage of the sequence of the socialist movement, we find that the party leaders as well as their political supporters enjoyed such authority that even the most privileged classes did not, throughout history. At the same time, they assume the features of the privileged class as they have gained absolute authority over all properties and the nationalized means of production, within political structure that enabled them to benefit from these properties and handle them according to their special interest. Besides, they have come to firmly believe that their absolute authority ensured happiness and abundance for all the people, just as the earlier elite groups had believed with what they enjoyed during the periods of feudal and capitalist regimes.

The only difference between these revolutionary rulers and the other (privileged) classes as Marxism tells us, is that these come into being and grow in accordance with the relations of ownership existing among the people and that it was the nature of these relations that determined the inclusion of each person in one class or another.

But as regards these new ‘owners’ in the socialist stage, it was not actually the mode of ownership that determined their inclusion in the ruling class. A person is included in the ruling class not because he is the owner of a certain amount of properties in the society, as Marxism supposed in respect of the earlier class-based societies. The case is just the opposite in the Marxist socialist society. In fact, a person enjoys special privileges or the actual essence of ownership because he is included in the ruling class.

The explanation of this difference between this privileged class in the socialist society and other elite classes in history is clear. This class was not born in the economic field while others were, in the opinion of Marxism. It came into being and grew on the political field under a certain system, resting on special philosophical, doctrinal and national bases, that is within the revolutionary party leading the experiment. Therefore the party with its system and special limits constitutes the factory of this ruling class.

The manifestations of this party-based class are seen in the unlimited administrative privileges enjoyed by the members of this class, extending from administration of the state to industrial organizations and production enterprises and other aspects of life. They are also reflected in the great disparity between wages of the workers and those of the party employees. In light of this new class-based scenario that the Marxist socialist stage leads to, it is possible for us to explain the forms of disparity and struggle in the political field in the socialist world, which are sometimes represented in colossal cleansing operations.

The privileged class under the shadow of the socialist movement grew within the party as we have seen. But it does not include the entire party. Furthermore, it may extend beyond precincts of the party in accordance with the circumstances besetting the leadership and their demands. It was therefore normal that the privileged class should encounter strong opposition within the party from those persons who were excluded in that class, despite their membership and loyalty to the party or who were expelled from its fold and consequently began to regard this new class composition a betrayal of the principles they proclaimed.

The privileged class also faces great opposition from outside the party from those who are vulnerable to oppression by dint of the party's political reality, in the form of special privileges, certain rights, monopoly of administrative apparatus and essential services in the nation. It appears logical after this that large-scale cleansing operations - as the communists call them – are a reflection of those circumstances and the class driven conflicts. It is also natural that these operations were violent and extensive, according to the power enjoyed by the ruling elites in the party and the state.

To realize the degree of the violence and extensiveness (of the operations) it would suffice us to know that they used to continuously take place at the top of the party's hierarchy in the same way as they did at the bottom, with a level of violence exceeding that presented by Marxism as a general mark for different forms of class conflicts in history. The purgative operations once involved nine of the eleven members of the Ministry that moved the wheels of the Soviet Government in 1936.

These operations also involved five of the seven chiefs of the Central Soviet Executive Committee, which formulated the constitution of 1936 and swept off forty-three secretaries of the central organization of the Party out of a total of fifty-three, as also seventy of the eighty members of the War Committee. The cleansing operations also involved three of the five marshals of the Soviet Army and approximately sixty per cent of Soviet generals and all the members of the first political office that Lenin had established after the revolution, with the exception of Stalin. Similarly the operations also led to the event in 1939 as the result of which two million members of the official party were expelled, out of a total of two million and a half. That was almost the entire party itself. By this we do not intend to publicize the ruling apparatus in the Socialist Society. That is not the intention of this book. All we want is to analyze the socialist stage scientifically to see how authoritarianism and materialism, by their nature, leads to a class condition that gives birth to horrible forms of struggle. The very movement that came to remove class-based system ended up establishing a new one.

The dictatorship of the proletariat, which is the second pillar in the socialist stage, is regarded by Marxism as an interim necessity that should last until the entire spiritual, ideological and social characteristics of capitalism are wiped out. It also expresses a deeper necessity in view of the nature of Marxist socialism - where all aspects of the economic activity in life are centrally planned and controlled - to have a strong central authority.

Such planning and implementation tasks require powerful authority that is not subjected to supervision and enjoys broad mandate so that it could hold all the public utilities in the country with an iron hand and distribute them in accordance with a thorough and minute plan. Thus the central economic planning prescribes for the political elites with powers of authoritarian nature over a broad scope, even beyond that needed to remove any legacy of capitalism. It alone prescribes a government of this political shade.

Now we may discuss nationalization, which is the third pillar of the socialist stage. The scientific notion about nationalization is based on the inconsistencies of the surplus value that resulting from private ownership of the capital goods or the means of production. According to Marx, this disparity will continue to accumulate until the point where the nationalization of all means of production becomes inevitable or a historical necessity. We have already discussed these so-called inconsistencies and seen how they are based on the wrong analytical premises. When the premises of the analysis were misleading and wrong, they would definitely lead to incorrect conclusions.

As for the doctrinal notion about nationalization, it is summed up in the eradication private ownership. This is followed by designating the ownership of the nation’s means of production to all people so that everyone, being a member of the entire society, becomes the owner of all the riches of the country. But this notion clashes with is the political reality of the socialist stage where the ruling class enjoys absolute authoritarian rule and use of the party and state apparatus.

In such a circumstance it is not sufficient to end private ownership legally and proclaim that the wealth belongs to all. The people should actually be able to enjoy the essence of that ownership in their real life. But the nature of the political situation would be such that only the ruling class enjoys the real essence of ownership, signified by its absolute domination over the riches and destiny of the country. For the rest, nationalization and ownership by the people is nothing more that mere legal proclamation.

It is in this way that this ruling class obtains the same opportunities the cartels used to enjoy in the capitalist society. The ruling class stands behind every act of the State and holds a monopoly over the right to represent the so-called classless society and in dealing with its wealth. In that moment, the ruling class becomes more powerful than any capitalist in extracting the surplus value (of the people). What are then the scientific guarantees (for the people’s wellbeing) in this regard?

Borrowing from Marxism’s own language we could say that nationalization in the Marxist socialist society brings forth an inconsistency between the socialist ownership for all (the people) and the actual essence of the ownership that is enjoyed only by the ruling class. For, the essence of ownership is actually the authority over the wealth and the power to enjoy its use and benefits.

This essence is enjoyed by the political elites who dominate the various entities of the society and is reflected legally as a form of privileges and rights. These are in reality a cover and a legalized mechanism to enjoy the essence of ownership. But this new owner in the Marxist socialist society differs from any previous capitalist owner in one aspect. That is, he cannot admit his ownership legally as that contradicts his political stand!

Due to its political nature, socialism thus carries the seed of this new ownership by the privileged ones. The socialist movement creates this group although at the same time makes it incumbent on those individuals to deny their roles in the economic life or declare ownership of the wealth as the capitalist who used to do so with all impudence. The nationalization in the Marxist socialism is not a unique event in history as there have been previous experiments with the idea of nationalization. Many ancient states had nationalized all the means of production and thereby earned gains quite similar to those secured by the Marxist socialism in its nationalization exercise.

In some Hellenistic countries, especially in Egypt, the governments followed the principle of nationalization and subjected production and commerce to its control, resulting in great benefits for the state. But in cases where it was enforced within the framework of Pharaonic absolute authority, its essence could be disguised. For, nationalization that creates collective ownership to expand production, done under the shadow of an absolute authority would result in the authority itself dominating and controlling the nationalized assets.

That is why in the ancient nationalization exercises, there were treacheries on the part of employees and oppression on the part of the authority. This was embodied in the elevation of the king to a divine status. The rich and powerful began to spend all their properties on this ‘ruler god’ to serve his desires, such as building of temples, palaces and tombs. It was not mere chance that the nationalization exercise in the most ancient Pharaonic era was accompanied by the same phenomena as those seen with the Marxist nationalization exercise in the modern age.

These include rapid progress in production and growing power of the authority upon taking over the control of nationalized wealth. Production output increased under the shadow of modern nationalization exercise, as it did under the same program during Pharaonic rule because exploitation of the needy always results in temporary rapid progress in production. In both situations, nationalization expanded under the rule of unrestricted supreme authorities, because when production growth is the only goal, nationalization indeed requires such extensive authority.

Under both, nationalization resulted in the ruling authority benefitting from the essence of ownership and becoming brutal, because the nationalization programs were not based on any spiritual premise. Nor were they guided by any value system. It was purely based on materialism aimed at maximizing production.

It is thus expected that the ruling elites would not find consistency between this material objective and the opportunities for privileges and enjoyment made available to them. It is also expected that they would not implement the essence of public ownership in real practise, except within the limits of material incentives to facilitate the increase in production. It does appear strange that we find the ruling elites in the ancient experiment lamenting about treachery alleging that the workers were enriching themselves with public properties, while in the modern experiment, Stalin had to admit - in a circular to all his countrymen - that the state and party elites had accumulated riches, taking advantage of the immediate post-war period.

Thus the resemblance between the two socialist experiments is very clear - both in appearance and results - in spite of the difference in their civil conditions and the modes of production. This indicates that the essence of both the experiments is the same, even though the framework and the scales differ. Thus we come to know that every nationalization exercise produces the same results if it was done under the same political framework of Marxism or that of authoritarian rule. Further, its proponents and the Marxist leaders present the same justification, which is growth of production. According to historical materialism, the growth of production constitutes the incentive for these events over the passage of time in history.

As for the last pillar of the socialist stage, as described earlier, it is the principle of distribution of "from each according to his ability and for each according to his work." From the scientific point of view, this principle relies on the laws of historical materialism, because after becoming classless - in accordance with the rules of modern socialism - the society no longer comprises worker class and the owner class. It becomes necessary for every individual to work so that he may live in line with the Marxian law of value, which asserts that work is the basis of the value. Every worker receives a share in the production that commensurate with the amount of the work he puts in. Thus the distribution would proceed on the principle of “from each according to his ability and for each in according to his work”.

This principle began to contradict the classless nature of socialism ever since it was enforced, simply because each individual differs from another in his work due to the variation in their capabilities, the different nature of work and the different level of complexity of each job. For example, there are workers who cannot work for six hours a day whereas some with can work for ten hours. There could be talented workers gifted with genius and intelligence that enable them to introduce improvements in the methods of production and therefore able to produce more than others. On the other hand, there could be workers who are not as fortunate in this regard and are only able follow, rather than innovate. Similarly, there could be technically trained workers capable of working with delicate electrical equipment while others could only handle simple tasks like carrying loads. There are also those working in the political arena whose works are significant and may influence the destiny of the entire country.

Differences among these works lead to differences in their resulting values. The differing values arise from differences in the works themselves, not due to a particular social reality. Marxism itself admits this, as it divides work into two – concrete labour and abstract labour – holding that the value of an hour of abstract and highly complex work may be many times more than that of an hour of concrete labour.

Faced with this problem, the socialist society finds only two alternatives to resolve the issue. One, keeping to the principle of distribution "for each according to his work" and therefore distribute the production among the individuals with unequal amounts, thereby creating class difference once again. Thus the socialist society has become a class-based society in a new way. Another alternative is for the socialist society to borrow the capitalist method of ‘stealing’ the surplus value - as viewed by Marx - such that the wages of all the individuals are equalized.

The theory and the practice pose to the Marxists two different paths in dealing with this problem. Thus, in practice the socialist society existing today adopts the first alternative to resolve the problem, with the society having a new class conflict. That is why we find that the top 1% of the population earning 4% to 5% of the total income in Russia 3. The Socialist leaders found that it is practically impossible to implement absolute equality and to bring down the work of scholars, political leaders and the military men to the level of concrete labour. That would freeze intellectual growth and paralyze scientific and intellectual life, turning most people to insignificant works, as long as the wage is maintained the same irrespective of the disparity and the level of complexity involved.

It is for this reason that disparities and conflicts grew in the socialist environment, which later escalated, given the governance style and political character. Therefore the ruling authority established the secret police class, which was accorded great privileges for its espionage activities. It is established to support its authoritarian rule. The result was that the socialist society eventually found itself faced with the same reality that socialism promised to remove.

As for the solution of the problem, an indication is found to renew the direction of the theory in the Engel’s book Anti-Dühring, when he presented the problem and offered an answer, saying:

How could, then, the problem of payment of high wages for abstract labour be solved? The entire question is important. In a society of specialist producers, the individuals or their families bear the cost of the training of a competent worker and hence the price paid for the ability to do competent work ensues from the individuals themselves. Thus a skilled slave is sold at a high price. For those who earn wages, the skilled workers are paid high prices. In the case where it is organized according to the socialist system, it is the society itself that bears this cost. So it is the society that should enjoy the fruit of the high value produced by abstract labour, instead of higher wage for the respective worker4.

This theoretical solution to the problem which Engels puts forward, supposes that the high value of the abstract labour, compensates the society for the expenses of the training of the respective workers to gain competence and able to carry out abstract work. Considering that in a capitalist society, it is the individual himself who bears the expenses of his training, he is entitled to those values that result from his training. But in a socialist society, the state bears the expenses incurred on his training and therefore it is entitled exclusively to the high value generated by the abstract labour. Given these, the technical worker has no right to demand a wage more than that of a general worker.

But this assumption is inconsistent with the reality, whereby the high pay that the political and military elites earn as specialist workers in the capitalist society significantly exceed the expenses incurred on their respective studies in political and military sciences, as explained earlier5. Besides this, Engels has not presented his solution to the problem in an exact form consonant with the so-called scientific bases in the Marxian economics. He forgot that the value of the commodity produced by a trained technical worker whom he referred to does not include the cost of his training and the expenses incurred on his studies6. What determines its value is only the amount of work involved in its production, in addition to the amount of work spent by the worker during his studies and training.

Thus it is possible that the worker had spent ten years of work in training worth one thousand Dinars. The cost of this training - that is one thousand Dinars - would represent the amount of work embedded therein, which is less than his ten-year work. In this example, the cost of training7 thus becomes less than the value created with his labour, which has held by the theory of surplus value, came only from the worker’s labour alone.

What would Engels then do when the amount of work represented in the expenses incurred in the training for the work, is less than the amount of work spent by the worker during the training? In such a case, the state has no right – on the basis of the Marxian economics – to extract the fruit of the worker’s training and extract from the worker the value that he had created in the commodity with his work during the training, for the reason that it was he himself that had paid for the cost of training.

After all, by the Marxism’s own principle, the additional value enjoyed by the production with the labour of the technical worker does not represent the expenses on his training and cost of his studies. Instead, it represents the work completed by the worker during the studies. So if this work was more than the amount of work represented in the expenses of training, the worker is entitled to higher wage for his abstract labour.

Engels also missed another point, that complex work is not always performed by well-trained employees. It is sometimes performed by a worker with natural talents that enable him to produce in an hour what others could not collectively do except in two hours. Thus he generates in one hour a value, which others do in two hours, on account of his natural competence and not because of any prior training.

So should this worker then earn twice as much as others do? But by allowing that, the socialist society would be creating disparities and conflicts. Or shall he be treated equal with others - earning only half of the value he actually generated? But, with that, the socialist society would be guilty of stealing from him the surplus value!

To summarize, the Government in the Marxist Socialist stage has only two alternatives before it. Either it implements the theory as imposed by the Marxian law of value and therefore distribute to everyone according to his work and thereby create the seed of class inconsistency anew, or it should elevate from the theory in so far as the implementation was concerned and equalize concrete labour with abstract labour. This makes an ordinary worker the same as a talented one and the society thereby extracts from the talented worker the surplus value while the value of his work is superior to that of an average worker, similar to what the capitalist used to do in extracting surplus value from works as implied by historical materialism.

Communism

Having completed the study of the socialist stage, we now reach the final stage in which the communist society is born and humanity is resurrected to the earthly paradise promised by the prophets of historical materialism. Communism has two main pillars:

First, wiping out private ownership both in production and in consumption. It thus involves nationalization of all capital goods (the means of production) and also all consumer goods.

Second, elimination of the political authority, and the eventual liberation of the society from the state.

The eradication of private ownership in all fields was not derived from the scientific law of value. The nationalization of the means of production - that formerly belong to the capitalists - was based on the theory of surplus value and the Marxian law of value. The idea behind nationalization is the assumption that the society attains a high degree of prosperity as the productive forces also grow enormously, thanks to the socialist system. Therefore no room is left for private ownership of consumer goods, what more of capital goods because every individual in the socialist society would get what he needs and desires to consume at any time he wishes. Therefore, there is no need for private ownership!

On this basis the principle of distribution in the communist society is “from each according to his ability and for each according to his need”, that is, everyone is given as much as that would satisfy his wants and all his demands are met because the wealth possessed by the society could satisfy all wants.

We know of no hypothesis more imaginative and extensive than this that every man in the communist society is able to satisfy all his desires and needs entirely and completely in the same way as he fulfills his needs for water and air, so that there may be no scarcity nor competition over the commodities nor any need to have anything exclusively. It appears from this that communism works wonders on the human personality turning the people into dedicated and prolific workers in production despite the absence of personal interest and pride under the shadow of nationalization. At the same time, it appears that communism also magically transforms the nature itself, removing all natural resistance and replacing it with graciousness and generosity that facilitate the communist society with its massive production of resources from the earth, rivers and seas.

The leaders of the Marxist movement tried to create the promised paradise but they failed, the outcome being that the experiment remained in between socialism and communism, until the inability to make communism materialize was expressed publicly. It’s the same outcome as those of other experiments that tried to adopt unrealistic paths that are inconsistent with the human nature.

In the beginning, the socialist revolution thus took a purely socialist direction when Lenin decreed that each property is common to all. The state confiscated lands from their owners and stripped the farmers off their individual means of production. This prompted the farmers to revolt, calling for strikes and production stoppages. Consequently there was famine that shook the very existence of the nation and forced the authorities to refrain from their plan. They restored proprietary rights to the farmers and the country regained its natural condition until the years 1928-1930, when another revolution took place aimed at nationalizing the lands again.

The farmers resumed their uprisings and strikes and in response the government carried out large-scale persecution, murders and arrests such that the prisons were full. The number of those killed reached one hundred thousand according to the communist reports, and many times higher according to the opponents. The famine resulting from the strike and disturbance in 1932 took a toll of six million people according to the admission by the government itself. The authority was thus obliged to withdraw and it then decided to grant each farmers some land, a hut and some cattle to benefit from, on the condition that the real ownership belonged to the state and that the farmer joined the society, Communist Agricultural Kolkhoz8. The state oversees the operation and may expel any member, as it deems appropriate.

As for the second pillar of Communism, stateless society, it is the most curious thing in communism. The idea behind this is based on the view of historical materialism about the description of the government as being an offspring the class inconsistency. For, it is an organization, which is created by the owner class to make the worker class subservient to it. In light of this description, therefore, there remains no justification for a government in a classless society, after it had removed all the vestiges and remains of class division. It is therefore natural that the government should wither away with the absence of its historical basis.

We have the right to question this change that turns the history from society with the state into one free from it - from the socialist stage to the communist one. We would ask as to how this social change takes place. Also, whether it occurs through a revolutionary – such that the society changes from the socialist stage to the communist stage in a decisive moment, the way it does from capitalism to socialism. Or if the change takes place in a gradual way such that the state simply withers away and shrinks until it vanishes.

So if the change is revolutionary and sudden, and proletarianism was annihilated by way of revolution, then which revolutionary class would be the one that completes the revolution? We have been told by Marxism that a social revolution against a government always sprouts from the class, which is not represented by that government. In light of this, therefore, a revolutionary change towards communism must materialize at the hands of the class not represented by the socialist government that is the proletarian class. So, is Marxism telling us that the communist revolution takes place at the hands of capitalists?

If the change from socialism to the stateless society was gradual, then it contradicts - before anything else - the norms of dialectics on which Marxism is based. For, the law of dialectics 9 - that quantitative differences beyond a certain point pass into qualitative changes - stresses that qualitative changes are not always gradual, they may be a leap, from one state to another. On the basis of this law, Marxism believed in the necessity of revolution and a sudden change at the beginning of each historical stage. How did this law then get invalidated at the time the society changed from socialism to communism?

The peaceful gradual change from the socialist to communist stage is inconsistent with the laws of dialectic as it contradicts the norms and reality. How could we imagine that a government in the socialist society gradually relinquishes its authority and diminishes itself to extinction, when all other governments on the face of the earth cling to their respective centres and defend their political survival till the last moments?

So, can there be anything stranger than this? The government itself offering to gradually diminish and wither away from existence, for the sake of the society's development! Is there anything more remote than this from the real nature of the socialist stage and the socialist experiment in the world today?

We have learnt that one of the elements essential for the socialist stage is the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat having absolute power. How does this absolute dictatorship, then, become a prelude for the eventual stateless society? And how could a dominant and indiscriminate authority pave the way for its own gradual and peaceful departure?

Lastly, let us lean towards Marxism in its notions and suppose that the miracle has materialised and that the communist society has come into being, with everyone working according to his ability and earning according to his needs. Wouldn’t the society then need an authority that may determine this need and reconcile or mediate the conflicting needs in the event they compete for commodity? Wouldn’t the society also require an authority to regulate work and allocate it among the various units of production?

• 1. From historical materialism aspect. [Note of Al-Islam.org].
• 2. The term ‘dictatorship’ indicates full control of the means of production by the state apparatus. [Note of Al-Islam.org].
• 3. This is for the period between 1925 to 1985. [Note of Al-Islam.org].
• 4. Anti-Dühring, (Arabic transl.), vol. p.96.
• 5. The author is arguing that the reason offered by Engels – regarding cost of sudies – to justify equalizing the salaries of technical and general workers, is inadequate. He implies that there are other factors contributing to the difference in value, apart from the cost of training and studies. [Note of Al-Islam.org].
• 6. Based on Marxism’s own theory of value. [Note of Al-Islam.org].
• 7. The cost of his training is viewed herein as similar to his wage or the price paid for renewing his labour power. According to Marxism, the whole value in the commodity produced is from the worker’s labour, comprising the value of his work and the value of his past work during training, which is embedded in his skills and experience. It is therefore implied here that the value of all his work in training is lower that the value of the commodity produced, which is absurd. [Note of Al-Islam.org].
• 8. A cooperative agriculture enterprise in the former Soviet Union. It is operated on state-owned land by the peasants from a number of households
• 9. The author apparently refers to Engel’s ‘three laws of dialectics”: quantity changes to quality, opposites interpenetrate, and negation of negation. [Note of Al-Islam.org].