Spicy question maybe, but I'm interested in your takes.
Personally, I think there's some major issues with at least the terminology of the 2 phase model of lower/higher stage communism or socialism/communism as the terms are used in classical theory. Specifically the 'lower stage' or 'socialism' term is problematic.
In the age of revision and after the success of counterrevolution it has become clear that there is in fact a transitional phase leading up to the classical transitional phase. Societies did not jump from developed capitalism to socialism immediately and even the states that arguably did were forced to roll back some of the core tenets of 'socialism' as it is described in Marx, Engels and Lenin. Namely no private ownership of the means of production and no exploitation of man by man.
To ultras this just means countries following this path aren't socialist. So then China isn't, Cuba isn't, no country still is really and those of us claiming they are then have to be revisionists. And to be fair, if you're dogmatic you can make that point going from the source material. China itself recognizes this inconsistency, thus not seeing itself at the stage of socialism. Yet it's a socialist state. But then what do we actually mean by 'socialism' when we use the term like this? Just a dictatorship of the proletariat? Any country in the process of building socialism?
That question comes up all the time and confuses the fuck out of people, because the term is either not applied consistently or as it's defined is lacking. I think discourse in the communist movement and about AES would profit immensely if we had a more consistent definition or usage of the term or a better defined concept of what that transition to socialism is and how we should call it.
Something that has been on my mind as I have been diving more into theory is what will happen to those that choose not to work "after the revolution."
I feel like at the time of Marx or Lenin, it was understood that manual labor war paramount to a productive society and the automation of the time made production more efficient with less manpower needed. But there was still this emphasis on how everyone will be a productive member of society in order to "earn their keep." The USSR, of course wasn't able to be 100% automated. So, I get that.
But we are in the early stages of an era of automation where there are going to be a lot less jobs needs that not everyone will be employed. But I also think that is a good thing. It's, imo, the obvious path our society needs to be striving for. Fewer people working, and less work needed due to fully or nearly fully automated systems of things like food or clothing. After all, we won't be striving for that infinite growth factor anymore.
The only thing I think I have seen that is close to an answer is that we will be working less so we will have more time to create. But that suggests that we will all still work but only, say 16 hours a week instead of 40-60. I think this definitely opens the opportunity for those that choose not to work, but do we call those people "parasites" and shun them? I don't think so. But I also don't know if this idea is fully realized in any text. At least not in any I've read yet.
Maybe this whole thing is just naturally lumped in with the old state "withering away"? Sorry for the sort of stream of thought comment btw.
Lafargue's "the right to be lazy" enlarges on this. I read it long time ago so don't remember his suggestion but the whole book is about your questions. Lafargue was Marx's son in law btw.
This sounds really good thanks! I got it pulled up in my phone and will grab an epub of it tonight for my e-reader.
From the wiki:
This definitely sounds like what I was wanting to explore. It's just been heavy on my mind and I was pretty hopeful someone had written about it.
I'm surprised I haven't heard of Lafargue before. Thanks for the rec.