Socialism needs Capitalism

[what's left?]

Marx, Engels and Lenin all spoke on the need for capitalism to thrive in a society in order for socialism to exist or at least reap the benefits of its predecessor.

So my question to you is, can socialism thrive without any connection or assistance from capitalism and if not, should capitalism be looked at as a temporary ally?

[Spawn of Stalin]

An ally for what exactly? Why would socialists align themselves with the capitalists they wish to destroy?

[Invincible Summer]

Marx, Engels and Lenin all spoke on the need for capitalism to thrive in a society in order for socialism to exist or at least reap the benefits of its predecessor.

So my question to you is, can socialism thrive without any connection or assistance from capitalism and if not, should capitalism be looked at as a temporary ally?


I think one can look at this from another way too - it's not necessarily that socialism needs to "grow" out of capitalism, but perhaps it "needs" capitalism in the way that capitalism provides a picture of what an exploitative, unequal, unjust system can be. Socialism and Communism will then be the grass that's greener on the other side.


I think it also depends on who you ask - AFAIK different tendencies have different views on this question. IMO, you can't have socialism/communism without any connection to capitalism in the sense that the world is a global system - unless all nations become communist at the same time, there will be socialism co-existing w/ capitalism, and thus there will be some sort of connection. Isolationism will only lead to the detriment of the "socialist" society.

[Sam_b]

Marx, Engels and Lenin all spoke on the need for capitalism to thrive in a society in order for socialism to exist or at least reap the benefits of its predecessor

Well thats a over-simplification of the issue. We talk of capitalism dying of its own contradictions and being progressive in the sense that it was a progressive step over the feudalism that came before it. However, capitalism is now a system which exploits, creates wealth divisions and of course imperialism. There is no 'ally' to this economic system as you cannot exist hand-in-hand with it: how long would a socialist 'state' exist in a sea of capitalism, for example?

This is why a plethora of anti-capitalist thinkers have talked about worldwide revolution: in particular the writings of Leon Trotsky. There is no peaceful coexistence with capitalism or trying to reform it to bring through socialism: it has to be overthrown.

[Tatarin]

No, socialism does not need capitalism once it is established, just as little as we need feudalism today.

[mikelepore]

Social systems have "purposes" or "missions" to fulfill, in effect, just as anatomical organs have specific "purposes" even though no consciousness had previously given them purposes. In this way, the historical mission of capitalism was to take society from the agricultural age into the industrial age. Once society has reached a certain minimum advancement in mechanization, such as the invention of the railroad and the telegraph, thereafter, further technological progress occurs in spite of capitalism and not because of it. The previous age in which there was genuinely not enough wealth to "go around", even if it had been distributed rationally, was a rut that society had to climb out of, and mechanization brought us beyond that point over a hundred years ago. To continue using capitalism now is like hesitating to discard a crutch long past the time when a broken leg has been healed.

[sanpal]

Marx, Engels and Lenin all spoke on the need for capitalism to thrive in a society in order for socialism to exist or at least reap the benefits of its predecessor.

So my question to you is, can socialism thrive without any connection or assistance from capitalism and if not, should capitalism be looked at as a temporary ally?


It is needed to distinguish capitalism from capitalist mode of production (capitalist MoP). Socialism can use capitalist MOP in the 'state capitalist (plus restricted private) sector' of economy in transition phase . In the same period of the transition simultaneously the communist sector of economy must be developed to replace gradually state capitalist sector. See my OP in the thread http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialist-mode-productioni-t106580/index.html

[Rusty Shackleford]

Correct me if im wrong. but wasnt the theory of "Permanent Revolution" an idea to bring feudal societies first to capitalism, and in a quick snap, into socialism? thus making it a bourgeois and socialist revolution all in one and being the end to any need for further revolution?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

There is no 'ally' to this economic system as you cannot exist hand-in-hand with it: how long would a socialist 'state' exist in a sea of capitalism, for example?

.

Nearly three quarters of a century if you militarise society, execute any opponents and turn the odd defensive war into an imperial one;)

[h9socialist]

I would sincerely like you to reference what quotation you are proceeding from Comrade DemSoc. In my life I have read about 8,000 pages of Marx, and I've never quite picked on the formulation you have laid out.

[h9socialist]

I'm sorry, I mean "Comrade what's left?" not Comrade DemSoc. I apologize, please forgive me.

[blake 3:17]

There are a number of issues I'd like to respond to, but don't think this discussion is the right place. The relationships between capitalism, socialism, modernity, democracy, liberalism, and nation and how Marxism can or will see them are pretty extended conversations.



Correct me if im wrong. but wasnt the theory of "Permanent Revolution" an idea to bring feudal societies first to capitalism, and in a quick snap, into socialism? thus making it a bourgeois and socialist revolution all in one and being the end to any need for further revolution?


Close, but a bit of a distortion --- Trotsky was writing about societies which combined pre-capitalist and capitalist relations of production.

To the OP:
Marx, Engels and Lenin all spoke on the need for capitalism to thrive in a society in order for socialism to exist or at least reap the benefits of its predecessor.

So my question to you is, can socialism thrive without any connection or assistance from capitalism and if not, should capitalism be looked at as a temporary ally?


I think it is pretty safe to say that most of the major Marxist thinkers and activists and politicians in the 19th and a good chunk of the 20th century, saw capitalism as a progressive force. It overturned feudalism and slavery, and provided the material social organization of production to eliminate starvation and other material deprivations. I don't think any remotely serious Marxist thinkers would make this claim today or within the last 40 years. We'll have to wait see the results of market reforms in Cuba and the opposition to the market in the other ALBA countries.


Unfortunately, capitalism re-enforces material deprivation (for some, while providing luxuries to others) and social inequality.

Edited to add: I can't see this in the thread above -- apologies if I missed it... The primary and most important gain that early Marxists saw in capitalist social relations was the massive growth of productivity. On an international scale, capitalism/imperialism can be seen as destructive of productivity. For oppressed nations creating relatively productive industry would be seen as a huge step forward. How that operated and in for the benefit of which social class is a bunch of different questions.