According to Marx’s teaching, the whole history is divided into socio-economic formations depending on the development of the basis (production forces plus production relations) and superstructures (a combination of political and social forms). A revolutionary situation arises when there is a discrepancy between the two. First, the basis changes, then the superstructure changes under it. More precisely, he changes the superstructure for himself. For example, in the depths of the ancient slave society there is a class of free landowners of the colonies, tools of labor develop and at some point their labor becomes more productive than the labor of slaves. Basis comes to a new level. The slave-owning states are going bankrupt, the feudal revolution is taking place. The superstructure is being reformed under a changed basis. There comes feudalism. Within its framework handicraft production is developing, the first bourgeois appear in the cities, they become a mass class and refuse to accept the feudal form of government that has become obsolete, pressuring the freedom of entrepreneurship. Bloody bourgeois revolutions shook Europe from 1568 (the Netherlands) to 1917 (Russia) years. As a result, the socio-economic formation is changing. Capitalism comes. Then he also just falls into decay and comes to replace him …
Marx painted everything clearly and logically exactly to that point. And then the interesting begins. Marx does not give a clear distinction between socialism and communism. In his opinion, socialism is the initial stage of communism. But the founder of social doctrine does not give a clear definition of communism, allegedly fearing to fall into utopia and become like Fourier, Owen, Saint-Simon. He confined himself only to such words in the Critique of the Gotha Program: “At the higher stage of communist society, after the subjugation to the division of labor has disappeared the enslaving person; At the same time, the opposite of mental and physical labor will disappear; when labor ceases to be only a means for life, but becomes the very first need of life; when together with the all-round development of individuals the productive forces will grow and all the sources of social wealth will flow in full flow, only then can a narrow horizon of bourgeois law be completely overcome, and society can write on its banner: Everyone according to his abilities, each according to his needs! ”
Another classic, Vladimir Lenin, in his work “The Catastrophe and How to Fight It,” gives a more specific definition: “… socialism is nothing more than a state-capitalist monopoly, turned to the benefit of the whole people and ceasing to be a capitalist monopoly … if the largest capitalist enterprise … became a state monopoly, then … the state directs the whole enterprise – in whose interests?
– either in the interests of the landowners and capitalists; then we get not a revolutionary-democratic, but a reactionary-bureaucratic state, an imperialist republic,
– either in the interests of revolutionary democracy; then this is a step towards socialism. ” As we can see, the concept of socialism as a dual state-capitalist monopoly already appears. And the line between the state of social justice and the classical capitalist state is very thin.
At the same time, Friedrich Engels in the famous Anti-Duhring warns: “Whatever forms the modern state takes, it remains the mechanism of a purely capitalist, capitalist state, the ideal aggregate capitalist. The more productive forces seize it in their property, the fuller will be its transformation into a cumulative capitalist and the more the number of citizens it will exploit. Workers will remain wage workers, proletarians. Capitalist relations will not be eliminated, but even more exacerbated. But this aggravation will be the last step in their development. The transformation of the productive forces into state ownership does not resolve the contradictions of capitalism, but it includes a formal means, the possibility of resolving them. “