We Need Capitalism

[Che_Guevara_]

everyone basically that is a communist/socialist doesnt like capitalism. And with good right why should we agree with inherited wealth and greed dominate a country but we need capitalism until a revolution so we can implement socialism then communism then a utopian stage. This works well in theory but some countries arent rich enough to succeed after a revolution. However dont you think a country like india which is rich would work perfectly as the money that should be distributed fairly is in the economy already so you could immediately incorporate socialism or maybe jump to communism.
Now please correct me on anything not right here because im not very familiar with communism/socialism until recently.
is it true then that;
capitalism - socialism - communism - utopianism???

[ZeroNowhere]

Capitalism -> Lower stage of socialism (with labour credits) -> Higher stage of socialism (without labour credits).
Or just Capitalism -> Higher phase of socialism, in the view of groups like the WSM.
Also, India is rich? I used to live there. Rich? Perhaps the rich are rich, and they ain't going to just hand their wealth to you, but otherwise? Certainly not. And anyways, we're not trying to redistribute money, we are trying to abolish it.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

everyone basically that is a communist/socialist doesnt like capitalism. And with good right why should we agree with inherited wealth and greed dominate a country but we need capitalism until a revolution so we can implement socialism then communism then a utopian stage. This works well in theory but some countries arent rich enough to succeed after a revolution. However dont you think a country like india which is rich would work perfectly as the money that should be distributed fairly is in the economy already so you could immediately incorporate socialism or maybe jump to communism.
Now please correct me on anything not right here because im not very familiar with communism/socialism until recently.
is it true then that;
capitalism - socialism - communism - utopianism???

The workers taking power doesn't mean that all traces of capitalism are eliminated automatically. Something similar to the NEP can be used for those countries that are not developed enough.

[scarletghoul]

Capitalism -> state socialism -> Communism ('utopia')

This is the most common communist idea. Anarchists would skip the state socialist part and go straight to "utopia"

Your point is good. If we take the marxist view of history as fact, then it would be impossible to enter the socialist stage of development without first going through the capitalist stage. I think this is why China has a lot of capitalism, to sufficiently develope the country so that there is enough wealth for effective socialism.

But I dont see any logical reason why history has to go through these stages, so I think it is possible for a country to go straight into socialism or statelessness without having a capitalist phase

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Capitalism -> state socialism -> Communism ('utopia')

This is the most common communist idea. Anarchists would skip the state socialist part and go straight to "utopia"

Your point is good. If we take the marxist view of history as fact, then it would be impossible to enter the socialist stage of development without first going through the capitalist stage. I think this is why China has a lot of capitalism, to sufficiently develope the country so that there is enough wealth for effective socialism.

But I dont see any logical reason why history has to go through these stages, so I think it is possible for a country to go straight into socialism or statelessness without having a capitalist phase

State socialism is an oxymoron.

[Black Sheep]

But I dont see any logical reason why history has to go through these stages, so I think it is possible for a country to go straight into socialism or statelessness without having a capitalist phase
Yeah.. if the poor farmers in an advancing capitalist country, alongside with the (minority as they are) proletariat are class concious,then they can develop industrialization of the economy themselves..

The necessity that capitalism often provides for socialism, ie the proletarian+their allies unity and struggle against capitalism is already there in that scenario.

[Pogue]

Why is this thread called We Need Capitalism...

[Blackscare]

I think this is why China has a lot of capitalism, to sufficiently develope the country so that there is enough wealth for effective socialism.

I don't think that's what is meant by capitalism coming first. Capitalism is needed for socialism to come about because it is rapacious enough to bring the working class to crisis point. Then revolution comes. That doesn't mean that we then create a new form of capitalism in it's wake, capitalism is just a preexisting factor that is needed for people to want to make the jump to socialism/communism.

What they are doing in China isn't in order to build up the economy for socialism IMO because in order to do that you must of course accept foreign investments of capital and the creation of a new capitalist class within the country's own borders, which is a really messy/dangerous position to put one's country in if you plan on just nationalizing everything afterward. You've created enemies for yourself from within and angry capitalist countries willing to intervene to save their investments. This is why I think that those who are in charge of China today do not have any intention to ever return to real socialism/communism, as much as we'd all like to hope that they would.

[Decolonize The Left]

everyone basically that is a communist/socialist doesnt like capitalism. And with good right why should we agree with inherited wealth and greed dominate a country but we need capitalism until a revolution so we can implement socialism then communism then a utopian stage. This works well in theory but some countries arent rich enough to succeed after a revolution. However dont you think a country like india which is rich would work perfectly as the money that should be distributed fairly is in the economy already so you could immediately incorporate socialism or maybe jump to communism.
Now please correct me on anything not right here because im not very familiar with communism/socialism until recently.
is it true then that;
capitalism - socialism - communism - utopianism???

No. It is only true that raising class consciousness will most likely lead to a solidarity within the working class which will most likely lead to some sort of a widespread socialist movement.

All other hypothesizing and preaching in regards to the unknown future is pointless and silly.

- August

[BlackCapital]

Theres one important bit of Marx relating to the Capitalism-->state socialism-->communism that I feel is overlooked. Capitalism was first necessary to create solidarity among workers,class consciousness, and eventually revolution; but is this really necessary for a developing country to repeat this same process just to figure this out?

Of course not. Marx describes capitalism as a progressive force rising out of feudalism and absolutely recognizes its success at industrialization. This is critical, as it is an obvious prerequisite to communism. Of course once it ceases to be progressive and becomes reactionary, its time to move on.

I would argue that the collapse of the USSR was due to the absence of successful revolution in other regions and the rapid, forced emphasis Stalin put on developing heavy industry which he attempted to achieve by selling the workers short. Industrialization prior to socialism is very important. Luckily for us, capitalists have just about taken care of that problem in the vast majority of the world nowadays.

[dmcauliffe09]

Capitalism is one of the stages of Marx's view of history (Primitive communism> slave state> feudalism> capitalism> socialism> communism). Capitalism is non needed, rather, it is something that has been inevitable that we must get rid of.

[RebelDog]

No. It is only true that raising class consciousness will most likely lead to a solidarity within the working class which will most likely lead to some sort of a widespread socialist movement.

All other hypothesizing and preaching in regards to the unknown future is pointless and silly.

- August

Pretty much how Marx would have answered this.

[Bilan]

State socialism is an oxymoron.

The Dictatorship of the proletariat is a form of a 'state'. Any form of organisation which is a form of class rule constitutes a state. The proletarian state is, however, vastly different in form, and hardly constitutes a state in the traditional sense.


“The proletariat seizes from state power and turns the means of production into state property to begin with. But thereby it abolishes itself as the proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, and abolishes also the state as state. Society thus far, operating amid class antagonisms, needed the state, that is, an organization of the particular exploiting class, for the maintenance of its external conditions of production, and, therefore, especially, for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited class in the conditions of oppression determined by the given mode of production (slavery, serfdom or bondage, wage-labor). The state was the official representative of society as a whole, its concentration in a visible corporation. But it was this only insofar as it was the state of that class which itself represented, for its own time, society as a whole: in ancient times, the state of slave-owning citizens; in the Middle Ages, of the feudal nobility; in our own time, of the bourgeoisie. When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection, as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon the present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from this struggle, are removed, nothing more remains to be held in subjection — nothing necessitating a special coercive force, a state. The first act by which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — is also its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies down of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not 'abolished'. It withers away. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase 'a free people's state', both as to its justifiable use for a long time from an agitational point of view, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the so-called anarchists' demand that the state be abolished overnight."

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

The Dictatorship of the proletariat is a form of a 'state'. Any form of organisation which is a form of class rule constitutes a state. The proletarian state is, however, vastly different in form, and hardly constitutes a state in the traditional sense.

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat =/= socialism.

[StalinFanboy]

Working families need capitalism like they need a bullet to the head.

[Niccolò Rossi]

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat =/= socialism.

Correct, however the former precedes the latter, the latter assumes the former.

[INDK]

Yeah, Capitalism comes before Communism. There, in Marxist theory, has to be Capitalism before Communism can be implemented because various failures of Capitalism create a 'revolutionary situation'. Without the first system failing nothing triggers the appropriate worker uprising. So, I suppose Capitalism as a stage of history is neccessary to implement Communism.

Initially I did get the wrong vibe from saying 'We Need Capitalism' but I get your question.

[Niccolò Rossi]

In response to Escape Artist's post - I would agree with the gist of your post, however I think a clarification needs to be made.


There, in Marxist theory, has to be Capitalism before Communism can be implemented because various failures of Capitalism create a 'revolutionary situation'.

Although the "failures of Capitalism" (really, the decadence of the capitalist mode of production) is a pre-requisite to it's abolition and the construction of socialism, the converse is not true - the reason why the capitalist mode of production is a pre-requisite for the existence of communism is not because it's "various failures ... create a 'revolutionary situation'". If you get my meaning.

The failure (decadence) of primitive communist, Asiatic, slave and feudal, that is, their fettering of the development of the productive forces did not result in their abolition and the construction of socialism, unlike your reasoning would suggest. Only the decadence of capitalism can provide this. Why? Because capitalism is distinct with regard to its ability to expand itself globally and develop the means of production to unprecedented levels, both of which together provide the material basis for communism.

[MarxSchmarx]

One key point that hasn`t been brought up is that capitalism creates the material conditions for socialism to be feasible.

Capitalism is key in the socialization of production. The "innovations" of capitalism entails an extreme specialization of labor, centralized and coordinated operations, and considerable economic planning. The only reason we aren`t living in a fully planned economy is that anti-trust laws and government subsidies have managed to keep the suboptimal mode of production economically viable.

Thus, although capitalism creates the conditions for socialism by developing and demarcating novel social classes, an immiserated majority is not the novel development of capitalism that facilitates a socialist society. This is arguably how a "socialist revolution" was possible in feudal societies like China and Russia.

Indeed, IMHO the real reason why a capitalist stage of development is crucial is that it centralizes and socializes the modes of production.

[Niccolò Rossi]

One key point that hasn`t been brought up is that capitalism creates the material conditions for socialism to be feasible.

I thought I mentioned that above, certainly not entirely in the sense you have in your post, but it has been brought up. :(:lol:


The only reason we aren`t living in a fully planned economy is that anti-trust laws and government subsidies have managed to keep the suboptimal mode of production economically viable.

This statement strikes me as utterly bizzare and absurd. What does it mean to say that a mode of production (capitalism) is or is not "economically viable"? How does monoploisation of certain industries or even the entire national economy affect this "economical viability". Aside from this, your arguement rests on false premises, the capitalist economy can never be a "fully planned economy". Statify the whole national economy if you want and you still won't have a fully planned economy, the law of value whilst circumvented or deformed on a national level will ultimately reinforce itself internationally on the world market in which the national capitals compete.


This is arguably how a "socialist revolution" was possible in feudal societies like China and Russia.

Neither China nor Russia were feudal in 1949 or 1917 respectively, despite this the character of the two revolutions differed, the Russian Revolution being proletarian.