I've a take that may anger both LeftComs & MLs about the socialism-classes relationship. I think both sides have gotten it *somewhat* wrong. I had this revelation while I was rereading Marx's Gotha about a week ago & like to explain my conclusions using "the Apple Analogy" (1/10)

If you have an apple on your plate, you'd say your plate has an apple on it. But if you have the peeled skin of the apple on a plate, you'd not say you have an apple on a plate, but you'd also not say that the plate is empty. Similarly: what is left over from class in Socialism?

Engels says that the division of labor persists as long as classes do (Principles of Communism). Marx in Gotha says the division of labor persists until the higher stage. This implies that *some semblance* of class is present in socialism. The crucial question is: what exactly?

Bordiga agrees, that "in the lower stage of socialism class differences have still not been eliminated" (Fundamentals of Revolutionary Communism). So, what is meant by "class" in these contexts?

The only logical conclusion one can draw (but of course not without opposition) is..

..that in the lower stage, put simply, class *character* of things, such as the antithesis between mental & physical labor & the precise "birthmarks of capitalism" still are in action. Class itself is in the process of withering away, so "class" as class simply does not exist...

This is the conclusion leftcoms push to an extreme, which causes their mistaken assumption of "absolutely no classes & no class characters" we often see. MLs on the other hand take these "birth pangs" to be class itself, making the erroneous point that capital c Class will exist.

This is agreed upon by most leftcoms subconsciously. There are theories about "non-antagonistic classes" persisting but beyond this all is speculation. What we can necessarily say is that both class & state are not present as themselves or "fully" in the lower phase (apple skin!)

One can even argue that this phase is the phase where they're actively withering away. So if we subtract 1 from 2, 2 is no longer 2, but it's still a number. This is hard to convey in a detailed manner here, but I hope you get what I'm tryna say. Maybe this warrants an article...

Summed up, socialism doesn't have *classes*, no. But it's debatable how free of class character the lower phase is. Our logical answer is - not completely. Hence all the "defects" that are seen until the higher stage itself. So both "complete classlessness" &...

.."existence of classes" are kinda wrong. They have seeds of truth in them, but are at radically opposing poles, where the answer lies in the middle. As for the State, the lower phase has "the bourgeois state, without the bourgeoisie!" (hence no class itself!) as Lenin put it.

/

Yeah this format is too limiting to coherently lay out a complete point, I will be writing about it sometime. There is not much space to elaborate & clearly outline where the mistakes of both sides are. This may seem hazy but it's the best twitter can do in 280cc. Stay tuned, ig.